Cognitive stimulation therapy as a low-resource intervention for dementia in sub-Saharan Africa (CST-SSA): Adaptation for rural Tanzania and Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cognitive stimulation therapy is a non-pharmacological intervention for people with dementia. Its use has been associated with substantial improvements in cognition and quality of life in studies from high-income countries, equivalent to those achieved by pharmacological treatments. Cognitive stimulation therapy may be particularly suited to low resource settings, such as sub-Saharan Africa, because it requires little specialist equipment and can be delivered by non-specialist health workers. The aim of this study was to adapt cognitive stimulation therapy for use in sub-Saharan Africa taking into account socio-cultural differences and resource implications. METHODS: Cognitive stimulation therapy is a structured programme, originally developed in the United Kingdom. Substantial adaptations were required for use in sub-Saharan Africa. The formative method for adapting psychotherapy was used as a framework for the adaption process. The feasibility of using the adapted cognitive stimulation therapy programme to manage dementia was assessed in Tanzania and Nigeria in November 2013. Further adaptations were made following critical appraisal of feasibility. RESULTS: The adapted cognitive stimulation therapy intervention appeared feasible and acceptable to participants and carers. Key adaptations included identification of suitable treatment settings, task adaptation to accommodate illiteracy and uncorrected sensory impairment, awareness of cultural differences and usage of locally available materials and equipment to ensure sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive stimulation therapy was successfully adapted for use in sub-Saharan Africa. Future work will focus on a trial of cognitive stimulation therapy in each setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".