MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092490138 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040753

Activities outside of the care setting for people with dementia: a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3092490138 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathan M. D’Cunha, Stephen Isbel, Andrew J. McKune, Jane Kellett, Nenad Naumovski

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDementia Australia Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineDementiaAlternative medicineGerontologyMEDLINESystematic reviewFamily medicineNursingPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from interventions investigating the effects of out of care setting activities on people with dementia living in residential aged care. DESIGN: A systematic review. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) was performed to identify intervention trials published from journal inception to January 2020. Controlled trials, or quasi-experimental trials, which measured pre-intervention, post-intervention or during-intervention outcomes, where the participants were required to leave the care setting to participate in an intervention, were eligible for inclusion. Quality appraisal of the studies was performed following the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools. RESULTS: Of the 4155 articles screened, 11 articles met the inclusion criteria from 9 different studies. The number of participants in the studies ranged from 6 to 70 people living with dementia and lasted for 3 weeks up to 5 months. The interventions were aquatic exercise, wheelchair cycling, art gallery discussion groups, an intergenerational mentorship programme, horse riding, walking and outdoor gardening. Overall, the studies indicated preliminary evidence of psychological (n=7), physical (n=4) and physiological (n=1) benefits, and all interventions were feasible to conduct away from the aged care facilities. However, the low number of participants in the included studies (n=177), the absence of a control group in all but three studies, and potential for selection bias, limits the generalisability of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Activities outside of the residential aged care setting have the potential to be effective at providing a range of benefits for people living with dementia. Higher quality studies are required to encourage care providers to implement these type of activities in dementia care settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020166518.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207