EXAMINING THE SOCIAL EXPERIENCE IN A VIRTUAL CULINARY NUTRITION EDUCATION INTERVENTION: THE COGNITIVE KITCHEN
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Evidence suggests preventing or delaying the onset of dementia could have a substantial impact on both direct and indirect costs of health care as well as individual burden. It is estimated around 40% of dementia cases could be prevented through the reduction of modifiable risk factors. Following a nutritious eating pattern is one strategy to reduce the risk of cognitive decline and dementia, but knowledge on how to encourage adoption of dietary patterns shown to support brain health is limited. Being socially active and engaging in cognitively stimulating activities are also recommended dementia risk-reduction behaviours. Cooking classes provide a unique setting where social contact can be integrated with continued education and practical application of nutrition-related dementia risk-reduction strategies (i.e., through food preparation). Interest in studying virtual cooking class delivery has recently increased, with some circumstances making remote attendance appealing (e.g., to reduce travel during inclement weather and illness outbreaks, potentially reduce program costs associated with space rental). Very little published literature captures the feasibility of virtual cooking class delivery in maintaining key program outcomes identified in conventional in-person classes—namely, social interaction. For a dementia risk-reduction-focused virtual intervention in particular, understanding strategies to enhance social engagement is valuable to maximize outcomes for participants. Aim: Examine older adult participants’ experience of the social component of a virtual culinary nutrition education intervention for dementia risk reduction. Methods: The Interpretive Description (ID) methodological approach was used to explore participants’ experiences from two separate but identical offerings of a pilot virtual Cognitive Kitchen program. Data sources for this qualitative study included session observation fieldnotes, end-of-program focus group discussions with each group, participant digital journal entries (45 submissions), and semi-structured individual interviews (n=15, comprised of 13 individual interviews and one shared interview). The two focus groups and 14 interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with the other data. Thematic analysis led to the identification of four themes that capture what was learned about the social component of the virtual Cognitive Kitchen from participants’ experiences. Findings: The themes respond to the research objectives of this study by describing the function of social interactions in the program and facilitators and barriers to social engagement in the virtual setting. Social interactions were described to contribute to key program outcomes related to providing culinary and nutrition education and promoting engagement in cooking, as represented by the themes Supporting Learning and Encouraging Application. The theme Trade-offs: Advantages and Missed Connections presents both benefits and drawbacks of the virtual setting that were identified to impact the social component of the program. Lastly, recommendations for future offerings of the Cognitive Kitchen are presented in the theme Ingredients for Engagement. Conclusion: The social component of the virtual Cognitive Kitchen was valued by participants and contributed to the achievement of key program outcomes. Specifically, contributions from group members were described to enhance the educational content on nutrition and socialization-related dementia risk-reduction strategies. Additionally, the group setting provided accountability for many participants to engage in home cooking and social interactions appeared to function to promote cooking as an activity to support well-being. The findings also capture that some social experiences are unable to be replicated via web-based programs. As such, additional effort by facilitators is necessary to enhance social engagement among participants in virtual culinary nutrition education interventions.
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 | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».