Randomized controlled trial of a six-week spiritual reminiscence intervention on hope, life satisfaction, and spiritual well-being in elderly with mild and moderate dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reminiscence therapy has been reported to improve the well-being in patients with dementia. However, few studies have examined the effects of spiritual reminiscence, which emphasizes on reconnecting and enhancing the meaning of one's own experience, on patients with dementia. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of spiritual reminiscence on hope, life satisfaction, and spiritual well-being in elderly Taiwanese with mild or moderate dementia. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 103 patients with mild or moderate dementia recruited from a medical center in central Taiwan. The patients were randomly assigned to either a 6-week spiritual reminiscence group (n = 53) or control group (n = 50). The Herth Hope Index, the Life Satisfaction Scale, the Spirituality Index of Well-Being were administered before and after the 6-week period. RESULTS: The interaction terms between group and time for the three outcome measures were found to be significant (P < 0.001), indicating that the changes over time in them were different between the intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this randomized controlled trial showed that hope, life satisfaction, and spiritual well-being of elderly patients with mild or moderate dementia could significantly be improved with a 6-week spiritual reminiscence intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".