The Role of Reading Classic Fiction in Book Groups for People with Dementia is Better Understood through Use of a Qualitative Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Rimkeit, B.S. and Claridge, G. (2017). Peer reviewed: literary Alzheimer’s, a qualitative feasibility study of dementia-friendly book groups. New Zealand Library & Information Management Journal, 56(2), 14-22. https://figshare.com/articles/Literary_Alzheimer_s_A_qualitative_feasibility_study_of_dementia-friendly_book_groups/5715052/1 Abstract Objective – To explore how people living with dementia experience reading classic fiction in book groups and what benefits this intervention provides. Design – Qualitative feasibility study. Setting – Day centre within a care home in the North Island of New Zealand. Subjects – Eight participants with a medical diagnosis of dementia – four community dwellers who attend day centers, and four residents of a secure dementia unit in a care home. Methods – Investigators used surveys, focus groups, and interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), for ideographic analysis of the data. Main results – Following analysis of the focus book group data, three superordinate, with related subordinate, themes were found: 1) the participant as a lively reader. The participants shared childhood memories of reading and when they became adults, how they encouraged reading within the household and with their own children. Subordinate themes included: recall, liveliness of discussion, and interest in reading and book clubs; 2) the participant as guardian of the voice of Dickens. Participants believed that, when the language is simplified, the beauty and rich imagery of Dickens is lost. Subordinate themes included: oversimplifying “loses the voice of Dickens”, familiarity, and continued play on words; and 3) the participant as a discerning book reviewer. The participants offered a number of ‘dementia-friendly’ suggestions, including the use of memory aids and simplifying text. Subordinate themes were expressed as four recommendations: use cast of characters; illustrations pick up the energy of the story, but balance quantity with risk of being childish; the physical quality of the text and paper; and chunk quantity of text while keeping the style of the original author. The choice of using classic fiction that was already well known was validated by the participants, who had some preconceptions about Ebenezer Scrooge, and described him by using epithets such as mean, an old bastard, and ugly. The participants found the investigators’ adapted version to be oversimplified, as short excerpts of the original Dickens seemed to evoke emotional and aesthetic responses of appreciation. Therefore, when creating adaptations, it is important to preserve the beauty of the original writing as much as possible. Conclusion – This qualitative feasibility study has provided a better understanding of how people living with dementia experience classic fiction in shared book groups. For individuals with Alzheimer’s disease, language skills may be well-preserved until later in the disease course. For example, the focus group participants demonstrated an appreciation and command of language, as well as enthusiasm and excitement in the sharing of the original Dickens with others. They suggested the use of memory aids, such as including a cast of characters, and repeating the referent newly on each page. Participants also suggested that the adapted version be shortened, to use a large font, and to include plenty of pictures. The choice of using classic fiction was validated by the participants, as they found these tales comforting and familiar, particularly when they included such colorful characters as Ebenezer Scrooge. Finally, people living with dementia should be encouraged to enjoy books for the same reason other adults love to read – primarily for the creative process. Classic fiction may be adapted to enhance readability, but the adaptation must be done in a thoughtful manner. While memory deficits occur in Alzheimer’s disease, an appreciation of complex language may be preserved until the later disease stages.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,064 | 0,061 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».