What is the Impact of Volunteers Providing Care and Support for People with Dementia in Acute Hospitals? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quarter of acute hospital beds are occupied by people with dementia, and a hospital stay may impact negatively on their health and wellbeing. The development and implementation of volunteers to provide social, activity-based, one-to-one support for people with dementia in acute hospitals has become routine practice. However, the evidence to support this practice has not been identified or evaluated. This systematic review considers the effect of volunteers on the care and experience of people with co-morbid cognitive impairment/dementia in acute hospitals. The systematic search identified 444 papers, although only three papers included specific analysis relating to the impact of volunteers. The evidence suggests volunteers may have potential to enhance the experiences of people with dementia in acute hospitals; however, there is currently a marked lack of evidence to support the widespread implementation of volunteers. There is therefore an urgent need for multi-site robust research to provide evidence of the impact of volunteers supporting people with cognitive impairment/dementia during an acute hospital stay.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".