Provision of dementia-related services in Canada: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dementia is common, particularly among older adults, and is one of the major causes of dependency later in life. We sought to provide an overview and comparison of key services related to dementia care as the disease progresses in three large Canadian healthcare centres. Methods We identified family physicians, geriatric specialists, and dementia case managers from three major population centres in Canada with universal healthcare coverage. Using a standardized longitudinal dementia case vignette, participants were interviewed on services they would provide at each stage of the disease. We used principles of content analysis to generate codes and identify themes; appropriate time frames from the vignette fitting the necessary provision of services were derived from the Canadian consensus statement and determined in consultation with clinical experts. Proportions of participants that identified dementia-related care services were analyzed at each time point of the vignette using chi-square tests. Results Thirty-four healthcare providers from Calgary (Alberta), Edmonton (Alberta), and Ottawa (Ontario) participated. Review of our data identified seven overarching themes of dementia-related care services. Services provided in the community setting include future planning and related services, educational and social support services, and home care and respite services. Although all providers consistently identified educational and social support services (e.g. the Alzheimer Society) within the appropriate time frame, the provision of other services was variable. The proportion of providers reporting potential access of future planning services was significantly different across the three sites (Calgary, 91.7 %; Edmonton; 58.3 %; and Ottawa, 30.0 %), p = 0.012. Also, the proportion of providers that identified day program services were significantly different across the three sites (Calgary, 100.0 %; Edmonton, 91.7 %; and Ottawa, 60.0 %), p = 0.023 according to a chi-square test. Conclusions We found important types of variability in service delivery among different regions in Canada for a typical patient with dementia and their family caregiver. Health systems can be calibrated by aligning services from different settings to appropriate time points in the vignette, which illustrates the dynamic course of service delivery and opportunities for improvement throughout the disease trajectory.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".