MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409337229 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic24258

Navigating Dementia Care: An Integrated Program for People with Dementia, Care Partners, and the Care Team

2025· article· en· W4409337229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lillian MacNeill, Shelley Doucet, Pamela Jarrett, Sherry Gionet, Karla Faig, Carol G. Marsh, David Black, Catherine Freeze, Alison Luke

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaIntegrated careNursingHealth careMedicinePsychologyDiseasePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia care is often fragmented and difficult to navigate. Patient navigation (PN) is one solution to address the care needs of people with dementia (PWD) and their care partners. Navigating Dementia NB/ Naviguer la démence NB was a research project that piloted a patient navigation (PN) program in a small semi-rural province in Canada for PWD, their care partners, and the care team. The intervention was co-designed with multiple stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers, patient partners, and representatives from Regional Health Authorities. For example, the research team collaborated with representatives from the Regional Health Authorities (e.g., directors, clinic managers) to select the most appropriate clinical sites for this intervention and to manage day-to-day operations of the intervention. A Patient and Family Advisory Committee (PFAC) assisted with program oversight and a member of PFAC also sat on the project organizational committee. The PN program aimed to guide and support patients and their families through health and social care systems, matching client needs to appropriate services/resources. Six patient navigators (4 anglophone and 2 francophone) were embedded in preexisting primary care clinics/health centres in urban and rural settings across the province. The role of the patient navigator was to increase participants’ knowledge of health and social services/resources related to dementia care, to improve access to these services/resources through in person and online patient navigation, and to improve communication pathways that promote the integration and coordination of care. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate the program, which was piloted for 12 months (July 2022-July 2023). Data for this evaluation was collected from patient navigator charts, satisfaction surveys, and semi-structured interviews with participants and stakeholders involved in creating and implementing the program. Across sites, 150 participants took part in the study. Reasons for contacting the navigators included: connecting with social services, dementia specific information and resources, advance care planning, community resources, and home health care. Fifty-six participants returned post-intervention satisfaction surveys. The survey data indicated that 85% of participants were generally satisfied with services from the program. Seventy-eight percent of participants reported having greater knowledge of health and/or social services and resources because of the patient navigator and 76% of participants reported having greater access to health and/or social services and resources. Thirty-seven participants completed post-intervention interviews about their experiences with the program, and qualitative content analysis of this data is underway. Preliminary analysis identified the following themes: overall satisfaction with the program, supportive tasks, systemic barriers, and recommendations for program improvement. These results suggest that PN, embedded in existing primary care clinics/health centers, is beneficial for PWD and their care partners. Furthermore, patient navigation is a flexible model of care and can be easily adapted to different populations and regions. These findings support our aim to promote positive experiences with health and social care systems for this population and promote person-centred, integrated care.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated Care→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→