Caregiver Perspectives of Aging in Place with Dementia: A Qualitative Exploration of Barriers Using the Social Ecological Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most persons living with dementia in Canada reside at home, relying on support from family and/or friends as caregivers. Evidentially, knowledge gaps exist when trying to understand how caregivers and persons living with dementia can be better supported in their community and health care environments. This research examined the effect of aging in place with a focus on providing a comprehensive understanding of the barriers to aging in place for persons living with dementia and their caregivers using the social-ecological model. Fourteen caregivers were recruited to participate in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. The subsequent theme, they do not make it easy , emphasizes issues faced with community and societal domains of aging in place care. These findings shed light on the unmet needs of persons living with dementia and their caregivers while aging in place, as well as the need to address systemic barriers to sincerely promote aging in place for all persons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".