Implementing Montessori Methods for Dementia™ in Ontario long-term care homes: Recreation staff and multidisciplinary consultants’ perceptions of policy and practice issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Montessori-based activities use a person-centred approach to benefit persons living with dementia by increasing their participation in, and enjoyment of, daily life. This study investigated recreation staff and multidisciplinary consultants' perceptions of factors that affected implementing Montessori Methods for Dementia™ in long-term care homes in Ontario, Canada. Qualitative data were obtained during semi-structured telephone interviews with 17 participants who worked in these homes. A political economy of aging perspective guided thematic data analysis. Barriers such as insufficient funding and negative attitudes towards activities reinforced a task-oriented biomedical model of care. Various forms of support and understanding helped put Montessori Methods for Dementia™ into practice as a person-centred care program, thus reportedly improving the quality of life of residents living with dementia, staff and family members. These results demonstrate that when Montessori Methods for Dementia™ approaches are learned and understood by staff they can be used as practical interventions for long-term care residents living with dementia.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".