Effects of An Occupational Therapy Memory Strategy Education Group Intervention on Irish Older Adults’ Self-Management of Everyday Memory Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An occupational therapy memory strategy education group (MSEG) was developed to assist clients with varying levels of memory impairment to adopt strategies to manage memory impairment in their daily lives. Participants were healthy older adults presenting with subjective memory complaints (SMC, n = 14), mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 33), or early stages of dementia (n = 13). Clients and their caregivers attended a one-hour session each week for six weeks. Outcome measures were taken at baseline, two weeks post completion of the group, and at a 3-month follow-up for 47 participants. Statistically significant improvements post-program were scored on the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (p = 0.001) and a dementia quality of life measure (p = 0.02), with increased use of external memory aids (p < 0.001) and significant improvements in participants' self-ratings of performance (p < 0.001) and satisfaction with their performance (p < 0.001) using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Findings suggest positive outcomes that were maintained at 3-month follow-up and thus, support the role of occupational therapy in delivering occupation-focused memory strategy programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".