Experiences of People Living with Dementia and their Care Partners in Participating in Outdoor Activities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background There is increasing evidence for non‐pharmacological interventions to prevent dementia and delay disease progression. Outdoor recreational activities, such as visits to local parks, may help improve behavioural symptoms of dementia, cognition, and quality of life for both people living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners. However, little is currently known about the experiences of PLWD and care partners about participating in outdoor activities. Understanding their experiences will help inform interventions and policies to promote participation in outdoor activities. Our objectives are to understand the experiences of PLWD and care partners in participating in outdoor activities. Methods We conducted semi‐structured interviews with PLWD and care partners, either alone or in dyads. Self‐reported characteristics of PLWD and care partners were recorded by online surveys. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Interview questions included questions about the following topics: individuals relationships to outdoor activities; how these relationships may have changed over time; their current patterns of outdoor activities; perceived benefits of outdoor activities; potential risks of outdoor activities; and facilitators and barriers to participating in activities. The transcripts of interviews were coded by two independent members of the research team to identify common themes. Result A total of 10 participants (7 care partners; 3 PLWD) have participated in interviews to date. Themes identified from interviews include: 1.) Outdoor activities help people maintain a sense of identity and connection with their lives before being diagnosed with dementia; 2.) Both a diagnosis of dementia, stage of dementia, and physical changes associated with aging impact on the types of activities people participate in; 3.) Outdoor activities are associated with psychological benefits for PLWD and care partners; 4.) There are unique considerations for PLWD and care partners that need to be considered when designing outdoor spaces or programs for PLWD. Conclusion Outdoor activities are important to PLWD and care partners and help maintain connections to individuals' identities and are perceived as important to maintaining quality of life. The design of outdoor spaces and activities programs for PLWD and care partners need to incorporate their perspectives to maximize participation and benefits associated with outdoor activities.
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 | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».