MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473513740 · doi:10.1017/ipm.2016.23

An evaluation of community-based cognitive stimulation therapy: a pilot study with an Irish population of people with dementia

2016· article· en· W2473513740 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Michelle E. Kelly, Susan Finan, Michael Lawless, N. Scully, Joyce J. Fitzpatrick, Martha Quigley, F. Tyrrell, Andrew O’Regan, A. Devane

Bibliographic record

VenueIrish Journal of Psychological Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrinity College DublinAlzheimer Society
KeywordsDementiaCognitionQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)IrishMontreal Cognitive AssessmentClinical psychologyPopulationClinical Dementia RatingMedicineGerontologyPsychiatryDiseaseCognitive impairmentPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Research shows that cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) improves cognitive function, quality of life, and well-being of people with mild-moderate dementia. Despite consistent evidence and recommendations, CST is not routinely available in Ireland post-diagnosis. The aim of the current research was to develop and evaluate community-based CST for people with mild-moderate dementia, run by the Alzheimer Society of Ireland across four pilot sites in Ireland. METHODS: Participants with mild-moderate dementia attended once weekly CST sessions for 14 weeks. Baseline and post-intervention assessments were completed by CST participants, carers, and CST facilitators. Primary outcomes of interest for CST participants included quality of life (Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease Scale), cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and subjective cognitive function (Memory Awareness Rating Scale-Functioning Subscale). Secondary outcomes included well-being, cognitive ability, satisfaction with cognitive performance, and engagement and confidence of CST participants; well-being of carers; and job satisfaction of facilitators. Post-intervention interviews supplemented quantitative analyses. RESULTS: In total, 20 CST participants, 17 carers, and six CST facilitators completed evaluation assessments. Results showed that CST improved participants' satisfaction with cognitive performance (p=0.002), level of engagement (p=0.046), level of confidence (p=0.026). Improvements on subjective cognitive function just fell short of significance (p=0.055). Qualitative analysis of interview data identified consistent themes of cognitive and overall benefits of CST; and provided support for quantitative data. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based CST positively impacted the lives of people with dementia and their families. This study supports prior recommendations that CST should be made routinely available to people with mild-moderate dementia, particularly in light of the lack of post-diagnostic interventions currently offered in Ireland.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrish Journal of Psychological MedicineSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207