Developing and Sustaining Dementia Capable Communities: An Analysis of the Current Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exclusion, marginalization and stigma remain common experiences for people living with dementia. Dementia capable communities offer a pathway to support the wellbeing of people living with dementia by creating spaces where people living with dementia and their care partners are supported and empowered. This review of reviews examines the ideas and approaches for dementia-capable communities across disciplines and at multiple levels of action. Review articles focusing broadly on the development and implementation of dementia capable communities were analyzed for their methods, evidence base, approaches, and recommendations. The results highlighted the importance of engaging and collaborating across different parties, the need to support dementia awareness and address stigma and the key role of policy regulations and planning guidelines in facilitating dementia capable communities. They also noted the need to have a focus on the built environment and making it easier for people living with dementia to navigate the community. The importance of social and community based supports in promoting connection and wellbeing was also brought forward. Systemic critical analysis of the public policy and political conditions that would be needed for the development and maintenance of dementia capable communities was missing. Development of thriving communities where people living with dementia are supported and included will require contending with these challenges.
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 | 0.021 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".