Between hope and future planning: the dementia journey for care partners through the lens of relational autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Future planning is essential for care partners to discuss and prepare for the goals of care for their relatives living with dementia. However, engaging in these discussions can be particularly challenging as care partners navigate the unpredictable and uncertain trajectory of dementia. This study aimed to explore how care partners of persons living with dementia engage in future planning (or not) throughout the dementia journey. METHODS: This multi-method qualitative study used a relational autonomy framework to examine the experiences of care partners providing daily care to a person living with dementia. Fifteen care partners from British Columbia, Canada, participated in semi-structured interviews and maintained reflective diaries over a period of up to two years (August 2020-October 2023). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify patterns and themes related to future planning. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified through the analysis: (1) changes to living arrangements, as care partners adjusted to the evolving needs of their relatives; (2) anticipatory grief, reflecting the emotional impact of witnessing the progression of dementia; (3) future planning with changing health, highlighting the challenges of aligning care plans with the shifting health status of the person living with dementia; and (4) finding hope, as care partners sought meaning and optimism amidst uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the complex and dynamic nature of future planning for care partners of individuals with progressive dementias. The findings highlight the need for tailored resources and interventions to support care partners in navigating future planning discussions, particularly in light of the emotional and relational challenges they face. Developing such resources could improve the preparedness and well-being of care partners as they engage in this critical aspect of caregiving.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".