Staff, caregivers and family members’ experiences and perceptions of Intergenerational Programmes inclusive of people living with dementia: A qualitative evidence synthesis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Opportunities for social engagement for people living with dementia are often limited due to a lack of understanding and empathy, as well as stigma associated with dementia. Intergenerational (IG) programmes are formal activities which bring generations together meaningfully. Although benefits of IG programmes have been reported for people living with dementia, more research is needed to understand these programmes and their effects. Specifically, while a recent qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) reported on experiences and perceptions of people living with dementia and young people, of IG programmes (Houghton et al. , 2022), there has been limited work synthesising research on the perspectives of healthcare staff, teachers, family members, and informal carers regarding their involvement. Including the range of perspectives from other parties is essential in understanding the nature and potential benefits of such programmes, as well as in identifying design considerations for future IG programmes in Ireland. Methods This is a protocol for a QES of peer-reviewed qualitative papers addressing the experiences and perceptions of healthcare staff, teachers, family members, and informal carers regarding IG programmes inclusive of people living with dementia. A systematic search of 7 databases will be conducted, as well as backward and forward citation checks. Two authors will independently screen texts for inclusion. It is anticipated that thematic synthesis will be used for all included studies. The methodological limitations of studies will be assessed using an adapted CASP tool and confidence in the review findings using GRADE CERQual. Discussion IG programmes involve engagement across multiple parties. Developing an understanding of the perspectives of all involved is critical in identifying factors contributing to successful IG programmes, and informing the design and implementation of future IG programmes. This QES will extend the literature and provide key considerations to guide the design and delivery of future IG programmes in Ireland.
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 | 0.108 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.007 |
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".