Cognitive behavioural therapy can be effective in treating anxiety and depression in persons with dementia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia is a neurocognitive disorder that affects a person's abilities in daily functioning. Anxiety and depression symptoms are common among persons with dementia. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been tested to manage their depression and anxiety symptoms. However, the purpose of CBT in managing these symptoms is unclear. Therefore, this paper aims to clarify whether CBT can be used to reduce depression and anxiety symptoms in persons with dementia. The electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were used to locate relevant studies. Eleven studies, which involved a total of 116 older adults, were identified. The findings suggest that CBT can be effective in reducing depression and anxiety symptoms. Based on our current review, the findings from previous studies form a promising foundation on which to conduct a major randomized controlled trial with a larger sample size. This review discusses some of the most important considerations in applying CBT to persons with dementia, and these may be beneficial for future studies that explore this area and seek more conclusive evidence on the use of CBT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".