Dementia-Friendly Community Initiatives: Evaluating Processes and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Dementia-friendly communities are emerging as a promising approach to promote the health and wellbeing of persons living with dementia and to support their desire to age at home. Despite the expansion of DFCs in Canada and globally, there is limited evidence on the benefits (e.g., social and/or financial benefits) of dementia-friendly community (DFC) initiatives, and of processes that support the development and implementation of initiatives. Purpose: The purpose of this thesis was to further the knowledge base on DFCs through a comprehensive evaluation of processes and outcomes of a local DFC project titled Empowering Dementia Friendly Communities, Hamilton and Haldimand. Method: There are three studies that constitute this thesis. The first study is a scoping review in which assessment tools that can be used to conduct quantitative assessments of the dementia-friendliness of a community were identified and examined. The second study is a process evaluation of the processes undertaken to conduct public consultations with persons living with dementia and care partners to learn about their community needs. The third study is an impact evaluation of a Canadian DFC mural on raising awareness about dementia. Guided by community-engaged research principles, community partners (e.g., persons living with dementia and stakeholders working on DFC initiatives) were engaged in all three studies. Findings: Scoping review findings indicate that there is a need to develop a comprehensive quantitative tool with strong psychometric properties that captures the community needs of persons living with dementia. The process evaluation emphasizes the importance of engaging persons living with dementia in community initiatives as project partners and project participants. Additionally, recommendations on how to support the engagement of persons living with dementia in public consultations are provided. Lastly, the impact evaluation provides evidence for the positive impact of interactions between persons living with dementia and community members and the value of public art in increasing community awareness about dementia. Lessons learned from the process undertaken to create the mural are also presented. Implications: This body of work supports the advancement of DFC initiatives. Findings suggest areas for future directions, including the need to develop a framework to guide the development and implementation of DFC initiatives, and the need to engage persons affected by dementia from marginalized and underserved communities in the development and implementation of initiatives.
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 | 0.154 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".