MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117310565 · doi:10.1002/alz70858_107669

Building Capacity for Inclusive Dementia Care: The development of the Alzheimer's Society of Ontario Health Equity Framework for Vulnerable Seniors Living with Dementia

2025· article· en· W7117310565 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ngozi Faith Iroanyah

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsAlzheimer Society of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaHealth equityEquity (law)Capacity buildingHealthy agingSocial determinants of healthHealth careInclusion (mineral)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As the most populous province in the country, Ontario is home to over 16,000,000, with almost 3.0 million people aged 65+. Ontario is also home to a rich diverse population, including the most amount of immigrant communities, and largest population of Indigenous people. Aging diverse populations have unique age-related health challenges and needs that require targeted responses. Ontario accounts for over 300,000 of the approximately 700,000 dementia cases. To support priority populations, the Alzheimer Society of Ontario has developed the Health Equity Framework for Vulnerable Seniors Living with Dementia to support the 26 local provincial Alzheimer societies in the development and implementation of health equity initiatives. METHODS: The health equity framework was developed in 3 phases. Phase 1 was a review of theoretical equity-based frameworks that focused on themes of social justice, anti-oppression, and social determinants of health to support vulnerable populations. Frameworks that addressed seniors' health, and dementia care were also reviewed. This included frameworks that considered person-centered approaches, the 6 domains of health and wellness, assets and strength bases approaches. There was no model found that discussed dementia and equity specifically. Phase 2 consists of in-person and virtual public consultations with local Alzheimer Society senior leadership and staff over a 6-month period, and a qualitative data analysis of the findings. Additional consultations with industry experts are also part of phase 2 to gain industry perspectives on health equity and dementia. Phase 3 is the implementation of the framework, and evaluation of federation uptake and efficacy. This will be conducted in the spring of 2025. RESULTS: At the time of this abstract submission, 23 out of 26 societies were consulted, with further consultations to happen in the winter of 2024. Industry expert consultations will also be consulted in the spring of 2025. Initial review of the consultations revealed broader themes around ways to conduct community engagement, organizational gaps, and inclusive program development. CONCLUSION: Findings from the consultations will be used to develop the framework to increase organizational capacity and competency, and systems level responsiveness to health equity gaps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.022
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0060.024
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→