Effect of Cognitively Stimulating Activities on Symptom Management of Delirium Superimposed on Dementia: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether cognitively stimulating activities would reduce duration and severity of delirium and improve cognitive and physical function to a greater extent than usual care. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Eight post-acute care (PAC) facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults with dementia and delirium (N = 283). INTERVENTION: Research staff provided cognitively stimulating activities daily for up to 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were delirium duration (Confusion Assessment Method) and delirium severity (Delirium Rating Scale). Secondary outcomes were cognitive function (Digits Forward, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, CLOX) and physical function (Barthel Index). RESULTS: Mean percentage of delirium-free days (intervention: 64.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 59.6-70.1; control: 68.7%, 95% CI = 63.9-73.6; P = .37, Wilcoxon rank sum test) and delirium severity (range 0-39: intervention: 10.77, 95% CI = 10.10-11.45; control: 11.15, 95% CI = 10.50-11.80; difference 0.37, 95% CI = 0.56-1.31, P = .43) were similar in both groups. Significant differences for secondary outcomes favoring intervention were found (executive function (range 0-15): intervention: 6.58, 95% CI = 6.12-7.04; control: 5.89, 95% CI = 5.45-6.33; difference -0.69, 95% CI = 1.33 to -0.06, P = .03; constructional praxis (range 0-15): intervention: 8.84, 95% CI = 8.83-9.34; control: 7.53, 95% CI = 7.04-8.01; difference -1.31, 95% CI = 2.01 to -0.61, P < .001). After adjusting for baseline constructional praxis, the group comparison was no longer significant. Average length of stay was shorter in the intervention (36.09 days) than the control (53.13 days) group (standard error = 0.15, P = .01, negative binomial regression). CONCLUSION: Cognitively stimulating activities did not improve delirium but improved executive function and reduced length of stay. Resolution of delirium may require more-intense nonpharmacological management when the individual has 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".