Using Mobile Technology to Provide Personalized Reminiscence for People Living With Dementia and Their Carers: Appraisal of Outcomes From a Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia is an international research priority. Reminiscence is an intervention that prompts memories and has been widely used as a therapeutic approach for people living with dementia. We developed a novel iPad app to support home-based personalized reminiscence. It is crucial that technology-enabled reminiscence interventions are appraised. OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the effect of technology-enabled reminiscence on mutuality (defined as the level of "closeness" between an adult living with dementia and their carer), quality of carer and patient relationship, and subjective well-being. METHODS: A 19-week personalized reminiscence intervention facilitated by a program of training and a bespoke iPad app was delivered to people living with dementia and their family carers at their own homes. Participants (N=60) were recruited in dyads from a cognitive rehabilitation team affiliated with a large UK health care organization. Each dyad comprised a person living with early to moderate dementia and his or her family carer. Outcome measurement data were collected at baseline, midpoint, and intervention closure. RESULTS: Participants living with dementia attained statistically significant increases in mutuality, quality of carer and patient relationship, and subjective well-being (P<.001 for all 3) from baseline to endpoint. Carers attained nonsignificant increases in mutuality and quality of carer and patient relationship and a nonsignificant decrease in subjective well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that individual-specific reminiscence supported by an iPad app may be efficient in the context of early to moderate dementia. A robust randomized controlled trial of technology-enabled personalized reminiscence is warranted.
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 | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".