Re-thinking the nature of day programs for people with dementia: Implications for research

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q2 GERONTOLOGY
Holly Symonds-Brown, C. Ceci, W. Duggleby, M. Purkis
{"title":"Re-thinking the nature of day programs for people with dementia: Implications for research","authors":"Holly Symonds-Brown, C. Ceci, W. Duggleby, M. Purkis","doi":"10.1177/1471301219884429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Day programs are commonly identified in dementia strategies as a solution for keeping people with dementia home for as long as possible. Limited research evidence is available to support these policy approaches, and much of what exists demonstrates equivocal results. While key day program researchers have called for improvements in methodological and theoretical efforts, we argue that basic assumptions concerning what a day program is, and how the effects of day programs should be studied, also require reconsideration. Problematization is a systematic review strategy used to identify and critique assumptions guiding research practices and knowledge development in a field of study. The approach entails a broad overview of a field of research alongside a close reading of key texts to identify prevailing assumptions about the object of study and how it can be known. The intent is to discern how these assumptions are influencing research practices and thus knowledge development. A review of historical texts and research literature reviews was used (1) to identify trends in day program research between 1990 and 2018 and (2) to support identification of influential and typical studies for closer analysis (n = 36). The outcome of our analysis of the research literature suggests three sets of assumptions that guide much of the day program research literature: dementia is mainly treated as a problem of the individual; day programs are treated as stand-alone units of substitute care; and the space of day programs is seen as a simple background to care. We argue that the assumptions regarding care and space have narrowed the field of research and contributed to the production of equivocal findings. We suggest alternative framings of notions of care and space, informed by a Science and Technology Studies’ approach to care practices, to generate knowledge about day programs that can usefully inform policy and practice.","PeriodicalId":51413,"journal":{"name":"Dementia-International Journal of Social Research and Practice","volume":"20 1","pages":"326 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1471301219884429","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia-International Journal of Social Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301219884429","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Day programs are commonly identified in dementia strategies as a solution for keeping people with dementia home for as long as possible. Limited research evidence is available to support these policy approaches, and much of what exists demonstrates equivocal results. While key day program researchers have called for improvements in methodological and theoretical efforts, we argue that basic assumptions concerning what a day program is, and how the effects of day programs should be studied, also require reconsideration. Problematization is a systematic review strategy used to identify and critique assumptions guiding research practices and knowledge development in a field of study. The approach entails a broad overview of a field of research alongside a close reading of key texts to identify prevailing assumptions about the object of study and how it can be known. The intent is to discern how these assumptions are influencing research practices and thus knowledge development. A review of historical texts and research literature reviews was used (1) to identify trends in day program research between 1990 and 2018 and (2) to support identification of influential and typical studies for closer analysis (n = 36). The outcome of our analysis of the research literature suggests three sets of assumptions that guide much of the day program research literature: dementia is mainly treated as a problem of the individual; day programs are treated as stand-alone units of substitute care; and the space of day programs is seen as a simple background to care. We argue that the assumptions regarding care and space have narrowed the field of research and contributed to the production of equivocal findings. We suggest alternative framings of notions of care and space, informed by a Science and Technology Studies’ approach to care practices, to generate knowledge about day programs that can usefully inform policy and practice.
重新思考痴呆症患者日间项目的性质:研究意义
在痴呆症策略中,日间项目通常被认为是让痴呆症患者尽可能长时间呆在家里的一种解决方案。可用于支持这些政策方法的研究证据有限,而且现有的许多研究都显示出模棱两可的结果。虽然关键的日计划研究人员呼吁在方法和理论方面进行改进,但我们认为,关于什么是日计划以及如何研究日计划的影响的基本假设也需要重新考虑。问题化是一种系统的回顾策略,用于识别和批评指导研究实践和知识发展的假设。这种方法需要对一个研究领域进行广泛的概述,同时仔细阅读关键文本,以确定关于研究对象的普遍假设以及如何了解它。目的是辨别这些假设如何影响研究实践,从而影响知识的发展。通过对历史文本和研究文献的回顾(1)确定1990年至2018年日间项目研究的趋势;(2)支持确定有影响力和典型的研究,以进行更深入的分析(n = 36)。我们对研究文献的分析结果提出了三组假设,这些假设指导了大部分的日常计划研究文献:痴呆症主要被视为个人问题;日间项目被视为独立的替代护理单位;日间项目的空间被视为一个简单的护理背景。我们认为,关于护理和空间的假设缩小了研究领域,并导致了模棱两可的发现。我们建议通过科学和技术研究的护理实践方法,对护理和空间概念进行替代框架,以产生有关日间项目的知识,这些知识可以有效地为政策和实践提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: Dementia acts as a major forum for social research of direct relevance to improving the quality of life and quality of care for people with dementia and their families. For the first time an international research journal is available for academics and practitioners that has as its primary paradigm the lived experience of dementia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信