MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144622653 · doi:10.1080/01634372.2015.1008166

Intergenerational Programs for Persons With Dementia: A Scoping Review

2015· review· en· W2144622653 on OpenAlexafffund
Bethany Galbraith, Hannah Larkin, A. C. Moorhouse, Tamara Oomen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Social Work · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDementiaPsychologyMoodPerceptionSet (abstract data type)Developmental psychologyGerontologyApplied psychologyMedical educationClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participation in intergenerational programs can have a positive impact on quality of life and well-being across age groups. We sought to examine the characteristics, goals, and outcomes of intergenerational programs for persons with dementia and children or youth. Six hundred and seventy-nine unique abstracts were identified through a search of 7 medical databases, 16 social science databases, 2 gray literature databases, and other sources. Twenty-seven articles met criteria for review. Articles must have gathered information on program design, goals, outcomes, or participants' perceptions. Overall, 3 themes emerged: program design, outcomes for child or youth participants, and outcomes for persons with dementia. Music, arts-based, and narrative programs were most common. Outcomes include effects on perceptions of aging and dementia, behavior, mood, engagement and sense of self. The use of qualitative and quantitative data, as well as descriptive articles, provided a richer picture of the relational features of intergenerational programs to emerge. The type of program had less of an impact on positive outcomes than if the activity was meaningful for participants and supported shared opportunities for relationship building and growth. The relationship-based skill set and scope of social work practitioners provides opportunity for the development, facilitation, and evaluation of intergenerational programs. The difficulties of establishing best practices due to methodological challenges and implications for further research are presented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.289
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations99
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gerontological Social WorkSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207