Multisensory stimulation was not better than usual activities for changing cognition, behaviour, and mood in dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Baker R, Holloway J, Holtkamp CC, et al . Effects of multi-sensory stimulation for people with dementia. J Adv Nurs 2003;43:465–77.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In older adults with dementia, does individualised multisensory stimulation (MSS) improve behaviour, mood, and cognition more than a control activity (eg, playing cards, looking at photographs, or doing quizzes)? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6] Allocation: {concealed}*. ### ![Graphic][7] Blinding: unblinded. ### ![Graphic][8] Follow up period: 8 weeks. ### ![Graphic][9] Setting: a day hospital in the UK and psychogeriatric wards in the Netherlands and Sweden. ### ![Graphic][10] Patients: 136 patients (mean age 82 y) who had Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, or mixed dementia; no major psychiatric comorbid conditions; moderate to severe cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score 0–17); and were not confined to bed. ### ![Graphic][11] Interventions: eight 30 minute sessions of either MSS (n = 65) or activity (n = 71) twice a week for 4 weeks. Sessions occurred one on one with the same key worker (nurse, occupational therapist, or psychology assistant) whenever possible. MSS was matched to the patient’s needs and interests and included light and sound effects and materials for touching and smelling. The comparison activity sessions consisted of playing cards, doing quizzes, and looking at photographs with no clear aim or focus to the task. No intentional special MSS experiences were introduced. ### ![Graphic][12] Outcomes: behaviour and mood during and after sessions (Interact rating form); … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Badvanced%2Bnursing%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAdv%2BNurs%26rft.aulast%253DBaker%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%26rft.volume%253D43%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D465%26rft.epage%253D477%26rft.atitle%253DEffects%2Bof%2Bmulti-sensory%2Bstimulation%2Bfor%2Bpeople%2Bwith%2Bdementia.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1365-2648.2003.02744.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12919265%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02744.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12919265&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F2%2F55.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000185063100005&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [12]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.gif
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".