Research Family physicians ’ perspectives on care of dementia patients and family caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify factors that facilitate or impede family physicians in ambulatory care of patients with dementia and the family caregivers of such patients. DESIGN Explanatory qualitative analyses of focus group discussions. SETTING Large, medium, and small urban; suburban; and rural family practices from various regions of the province of Quebec. PARTICIPANTS Twenty-five family doctors whose practices had at least 75 % ambulatory patients; of these patients, an estimated minimum of 20 % were 65 years old or older and at least 2 % suffered from dementia. METHOD Physicians were recruited by telephone to be paid participants in their regions in focus groups studying aspects of dementia care in ambulatory settings. Grounded theory and constant comparative methods were used to explore data from 3 French-speaking focus groups and 1 English-speaking focus group. MAIN FINDINGS Physicians were 72 % male, had a mean of 21.3 years in practice, and spent about 87 % of their professional time in office practice. An estimated 38.7 % of their patients were 65 years old or older, and 5.6% of these patients had Alzheimer disease or related dementias. Physicians were comfortable caring for these patients and their family caregivers but thought much of this care should come from support services offered
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".