Cognitive stimulation therapy improved cognition and quality of life in dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spector A, Thorgrimsen L, Woods B, et al . Efficacy of an evidence-based cognitive stimulation therapy programme for people with dementia: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2003;183:248–54.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In people with dementia, does cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) improve cognition and quality of life? ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: concealed. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: blinded (outcome assessor). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 7 weeks. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: 5 day centres and 18 residential homes (with ⩾15 people in each) in the UK. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 201 people (mean age 85 y, 79% women) who met DSM-IV criteria for dementia, scored 10–24 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), were able to communicate (according the Clifton Assessment Procedures for the Elderly—Behaviour Rating Scale), had sufficient vision and hearing to participate and use material in a group, and did not have major physical illness or disability (including learning disability). ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Interventions: CST (n = 115): fourteen 45 minute sessions twice a week for 7 weeks. The programme used the concepts of reality orientation and cognitive stimulation and included the topics of money, word games, the present day, and famous faces. “Usual activities” (n = 86): in most settings, this consisted of doing nothing. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Outcomes: cognition (MMSE), quality of life (Quality of Life–Alzheimer’s Disease Scale), communication (Holden Communication Scale), behaviour (Clifton Assessment Procedures for the Elderly–Behaviour Rating Scale), global … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BBritish%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DBr.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DSPECTOR%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%26rft.volume%253D183%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D248%26rft.epage%253D254%26rft.atitle%253DEfficacy%2Bof%2Ban%2Bevidence-based%2Bcognitive%2Bstimulation%2Btherapy%2Bprogramme%2Bfor%2Bpeople%2Bwith%2Bdementia%253A%2BRandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1192%252Fbjp.183.3.248%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12948999%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bjprcpsych&resid=183/3/248&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F2%2F54.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [10]: /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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".