Raising our voices: The impact of a dementia choir on well‐being and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The benefits of non‐pharmacological interventions for PwAD that maintain or improve function in ADLs, cognition and reduce behavioural symptoms have been well‐documented (Sampath, Forbes, Barton, & Blake, 2015).4 Strategies to slow the progression of AD (protective factors) have emphasized healthy diet, aerobic exercise, active social life, and cognitive stimulation (Wong, Gilmour & Ramage‐Mori, 2016)). Arts‐based approaches to dementia prevention are unique in shifting the attention from disease‐related declines and losses toward innovation and creative action. Examples include sensory stimulation such as music therapy (McDermott, Crellin, Ridder, Orrell, 2013; Keeler, et al., 2015; Harris & Caporella, 2014), art therapy including movement/dance and painting, cognitive engagement and physical activities (Williams, Plassman, Burke, Benjamin, 2010), and psychosocial interventions such as one‐on‐one socializing. Stigma represents one of the biggest barriers to living well with dementia following diagnosis (Alzheimer’s Association, 2019). Social isolation is common as roles, friendships and opportunities to participate in the broader community disappear. An intergenerational dementia choir that focuses on strengths rather than losses and offers opportunities for learning, friendships and purposeful engagement towards common goals (e.g., regular social engagement, public concerts at season’s end). Method Persons with dementia (n = 32), in partnership with their family caregivers (n=32) and local high school students (n=29), sang in a professionally conducted choir for as many as three seasons (∼ 12 weeks long) spanning up to 18 months of follow‐up. Assessments of psychosocial, physiological, and cognitive function were completed every four to six weeks as part of an intensive repeated measures design. Result Findings indicate that this novel lifestyle intervention offers an effective non‐pharmacological alternative approach for older adults with dementia. Choir participation has important and significant impacts on psychosocial well‐being and quality of life. Both caregivers and PwD experienced reductions in health risks and improvements in quality of life. Students’ understanding of dementia became more positive over time and new friendships developed. Conclusion The discussion focuses on policy implications and the need for meaningful and inclusive community‐based programs for PwD and their caregivers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".