Lisa Kirk Wiese1, James E Galvin2, Christine L Williams1. 1. Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University , Boca Raton , FL , USA. 2. Integrated Medicine and Clinical Research , Boca Raton , FL , USA.
Abstract
Objectives: The study aims were to explore stakeholder perceptions about cognitive screening in a rural, ethnically diverse, underserved setting, and to examine whether perceptions varied by years lived in a rural area, career, health literacy, willingness to be screened, ethnicity, education, or age. Methods: Twenty-one rural, ethnically diverse stakeholders completed an open-ended interview of five questions and a measure regarding perceptions about cognitive screening (PRISM-PC, Boustani, et al., 2008 ). Open coding using the in vivo process (Saldaña, 2015 ) to "derive codes from the actual participant language" (p. 77) was used to analyze the qualitative data. We used Pearson correlation to examine relationships between the PRISM-PC and sociodemographics including age, years of education, health literacy, years lived in rural areas, and willingness to participate in cognitive screening. Results: Eight codes and two themes were identified from the in vivo analysis. The eight codes were "a sentence being pronounced over the lives", "keep everybody at home", "Education is big", the trust issues is everything here", "identify support systems", "access to care", and "there is a cost to do that". The two themes were "Trust is the essential component of connecting with Community", and (2) "The Community recognizes the importance of knowledge in improving care. PRISM-PC results added new information in that persons were concerned about the emotional and financial burden on their families. Overall, regardless of age, careers, care involvement, health literacy, or education, 81% of stakeholders indicated they would seek annual cognitive screening. Discussion: It is important for rural health professionals to consider that contrary to previous stigma concerns, stakeholders may support earlier dementia detection.
Objectives: The study aims were to explore stakeholder perceptions about cognitive screening in a rural, ethnically diverse, underserved setting, and to examine whether perceptions varied by years lived in a rural area, career, health literacy, willingness to be screened, ethnicity, education, or age. Methods: Twenty-one rural, ethnically diverse stakeholders completed an open-ended interview of five questions and a measure regarding perceptions about cognitive screening (PRISM-PC, Boustani, et al., 2008 ). Open coding using the in vivo process (Saldaña, 2015 ) to "derive codes from the actual participant language" (p. 77) was used to analyze the qualitative data. We used Pearson correlation to examine relationships between the PRISM-PC and sociodemographics including age, years of education, health literacy, years lived in rural areas, and willingness to participate in cognitive screening. Results: Eight codes and two themes were identified from the in vivo analysis. The eight codes were "a sentence being pronounced over the lives", "keep everybody at home", "Education is big", the trust issues is everything here", "identify support systems", "access to care", and "there is a cost to do that". The two themes were "Trust is the essential component of connecting with Community", and (2) "The Community recognizes the importance of knowledge in improving care. PRISM-PC results added new information in that persons were concerned about the emotional and financial burden on their families. Overall, regardless of age, careers, care involvement, health literacy, or education, 81% of stakeholders indicated they would seek annual cognitive screening. Discussion: It is important for rural health professionals to consider that contrary to previous stigma concerns, stakeholders may support earlier dementia detection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Screening and diagnosis; beliefs/attitudes; cultural aspects; mild cognitive impairment; psychological and social aspects
Authors: Pamela Stewart Fahs; Margaret Pribulick; Ishan Canty Williams; Gary D James; Virginia Rovnyak; Virginia Rovynak; Susan M Seibold-Simpson Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Robert C Green; Kurt D Christensen; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Charmaine D M Royal; Thomas O Obisesan; Robert Cook-Deegan; Erin Linnenbringer; Melissa Barber Butson; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Elana Levinson; J Scott Roberts Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Jasenka Demirovic; Ronald Prineas; David Loewenstein; Judy Bean; Ranjan Duara; Steven Sevush; Jose Szapocznik Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Steven Martin; Sarah Kelly; Ayesha Khan; Sarah Cullum; Tom Dening; Greta Rait; Chris Fox; Cornelius Katona; Theodore Cosco; Carol Brayne; Louise Lafortune Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Lisa Kirk Wiese; Christine L Williams; Debra Hain; David Newman; Christina P Houston; Carolina Kaack; James E Galvin Journal: Geriatr Nurs Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 2.361