Virtual Reality Therapy in Long Term Care Resident Older Adults With Dementia: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) worsens as dementia progresses, intensifies caregiver distress and consequent institutionalization. We wanted to evaluate 1) feasibility of Virtual Reality (VR) as cognitive stimulation therapy for BPSD in a Long-Term Care (LTC) home, 2) participants’ tolerance for the therapy, 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing VR therapy, 4) sensitivity to change of the participants’ BPSD to VR therapy, and 5) longitudinal construct validity of BPSD measuring tools. METHODS: A single site (Henley Place at London, Ontario) case series with a convenience sample (24 older adult residents with moderate to severe dementia). Intervention was 30 minutes of VR therapy with Broomx©, five days a week for two weeks. The change in BPSD was measured with Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) scale, Dementia Observation System (DOS) scale, and proportion of night-time sleep. We validated selected tools with Global Rating of Change (GRC) scale. RESULTS: Implementing VR therapy was possible at Henley Place (recruitment rate=40%, the adherence rate=21%, and the attrition=0%) and participants could tolerate it. No emergency transfers or one-to-one staff use were recorded during the intervention period. CONCLUSION: VR therapy can be implemented in a LTC home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was not registered as clinical trial. We obtained ethics approval from ADVARRA Canada Ethics Board before recruiting participants for the study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".