‘ <i>The deprioritization of communication care’:</i> barriers to implementing communication care for people with dementia – speech-language pathologists’ consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to gain a consensus about the most important barriers to implementing evidence-based communication care for people with dementia (PWD) and their families in British Columbia from the perspective of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) with expertise in the area. Unlike previous research, this investigation focused on identifying barriers to providing evidence-based communication care for PWD, rather than barriers to providing speech-language pathology swallowing and communication services to this population. Nine of 13 invited SLPs, with expertise in the area, participated in a nominal group technique study to identify and then rank the ten most important barriers. The ten most important barriers included: inadequate speech-language pathology staffing levels, others’ lack of awareness and understanding of the SLP’s role in providing communication care for PWD, data- and research-related barriers, lack of a communication care pathway for PWD, deprioritization of communication care, and interdisciplinary-related barriers. The deprioritization of communication care may underpin a number of the other barriers identified in this study. Initiatives to improve advocacy, stakeholder collaboration, and improved education about evidence-based communication care for SLPs, speech-language pathology students, and other healthcare workers could help to address some of these barriers and improve services for PWD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".