A Systematic Review of Cognitive Stimulation Therapy for Older Adults with Mild to Moderate Dementia: An Occupational Therapy Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the need for effective non-pharmacological approaches for individuals with mild to moderate dementia, cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) interventions aim to optimize cognitive function. The present literature review explored the effectiveness of CST and the congruence of this approach with occupational therapy. Twenty-four databases and 13 "grey" sources were searched. Relevant papers were analysed using the McMaster Critical Literature Review Guidelines, the Modified Jadad Quality Scale and the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence Scale. To establish the congruence of CST with occupational therapy, themes were identified using the International Classification of Functioning and professional values outlined by the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. Twelve studies demonstrated a trend towards delayed cognitive decline following CST. This intervention strategy is congruent with occupational therapy values and may provide a useful structural framework to build rehabilitation programmes for this population. Psychometric properties of the McMaster Guidelines have not yet been established, and there is no standardized way to extract quantitative data from this measure. There is a need for further research exploring outcomes of CST interventions within the context of everyday function in individuals experiencing cognitive decline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".