The efficacy of a volunteer-administered cognitive stimulation program in long-term care homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment (CI) that arises in some older adults limits independence and decreases quality of life. Cognitive stimulation programs delivered by professional therapists have been shown to help maintain cognitive abilities, but the costs of such programming are prohibitive. The present study explored the feasibility and efficacy of using long-term care homes' volunteers to administer a cognitive stimulation program to residents. METHODS: Thirty-six resident participants and 16 volunteers were alternately assigned to one of two parallel groups: a control group (CG) or stimulation group (SG). For eight weeks, three times each week, CG participants met for standard "friendly visits" (casual conversation between a resident and volunteer) and SG participants met to work through a variety of exercises to stimulate residents' reasoning, attention, and memory abilities. Resident participants were pre- and post-tested using the Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-Second Edition, Test of Memory, and Learning-Senior Edition, a modified Letter Sorting test (LS), Clock Drawing Test (CDT), and the Action Word Verbal Fluency Test. RESULTS: Two-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for dementia diagnosis indicated statistically greater improvements in the stimulation participants than in the control participants in Immediate Verbal Memory, p = 0.011; Non-Verbal Memory, p = 0.012; Learning, p = 0.016; and Verbal Fluency, p = 0.024. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and efficiency of a volunteer-administered cognitive stimulation program was demonstrated. Longitudinal studies with larger sample sizes are recommended in order to continue investigating the breadth and depth volunteer roles in the maintenance of the cognitive abilities of older adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".