Implementing an arts‐based recreation program for older adults in care settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Research shows that older adults with memory‐support and complex‐care needs can meaningfully benefit from arts‐based activities because it can make them feel good, promote their sense of connection with personal and community identity, and stimulate thinking and memory. As a result, there is growing interest in integrating participatory arts techniques in clinical care settings. In this qualitative study, we explore therapeutic recreationists’ (TRs) experiences of implementing a visual‐arts program designed to promote learning and creative engagement. Method Participants were eight TRs or TR interns working in long‐term care (n = 4), short‐term residential (complex and palliative) care (n = 3), or memory day‐clinic (n = 1) settings. All implemented an arts‐based recreation program, ArtontheBrain, for at least 12 sessions over 6 weeks to older adults in their care in one‐on‐one or group sessions. ArtontheBrain is a virtual platform that delivers visual‐art content with modules designed to facilitate learning, play and storytelling (both reminiscence and imagined stories). TRs were encouraged to flexibly implement ArtontheBrain according to their judgement of how to best engage clients. TRs completed semi‐structured interviews which were then thematically analysed using NVivo 12 software. Result Emergent themes revealed that TRs were able to effectively use the arts‐based activity to (1) provide stimulating and appropriately paced cognitive challenges, (2) facilitate reminiscence and imagination, (3) promote conversation and social interaction, (4) learn new information about their clients’ preserved skills and interests, and (5) learn new facts about the world from their clients. Conclusion TRs found the arts‐based program to be a useful addition to their existing suite of care techniques. This finding complements results of studies documenting that older adults in care find arts‐based programs to be valuable in promoting their sense of wellbeing. Future research could investigate questions of who is likely to benefit from arts‐based programs and what methods are most effective for implementing arts‐based programs for older adults in care settings.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".