“If I Were in his Shoes”: Photo-Prompted Storytelling in Interviews With People Living With Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Supportive approaches to engaging with people living with dementia in research are needed to ensure that research methods are accessible to and incorporate the experiences of people living with dementia. This study sought to explore how the use of a photo-prompted storytelling technique impacted both the data collected as well as the engagement of people living with dementia in research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined an underutilized research method for supporting the engagement of people with dementia in qualitative research through involving participants in constructing a story about a character (Frank) using photos. Methods: This paper presents findings from a project which employed different interviewing techniques with people with dementia. Video recordings of interviews were used to facilitate observation of the engagement of participants in interviews. An observational scale was used to examine the engagement of participants in the interviews. Results: A total of 12 people living with dementia participated in this study. Qualitative content analysis resulted in the identification of several key areas of impact. When interviewed with the photo-prompted storytelling technique, participants tended to engage in reflection of their own experiences and beyond, and the photo-prompted storytelling technique also supported challenges with direct questioning and recall. It was also identified that there were content differences related to the photograph prompts. There was a statistically significant difference in engagement scores when participants were interviewed using photo-prompted storytelling techniques. Conclusion: Findings from this study reinforce the utility of photo-prompted storytelling techniques in supporting the participation people with dementia in qualitative interviews. These techniques may impact the types of data collected through interviews, as well as the engagement of people with dementia in interviews. Further research is needed to determine the impact of specific photograph prompts, as well as applications in a broader range of people living with dementia.
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 | 0.024 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".