Living well with dementia: The role volunteer-based social recreational programs in promoting social connectedness of people with dementia and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This evaluation study was designed to examine the factors that contribute the promotion of social connectedness among people with dementia and their caregivers through social recreational programs; develop an understanding of volunteer’s impact on program success; and identify the barriers and facilitators to improve the volunteer-based programs to promote social connectedness.Method: A qualitative descriptive research design was used to explore the study participants’ lived experiences of social recreational programs from Alzheimer’s Society of Durham Region (ASDR) in Ontario, Canada. A final sample of 31 participants was recruited including people with dementia, informal caregivers, and community volunteers. Qualitative data was collected through face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Emerging themes were derived from the qualitative descriptive data using thematic analysis.Results: The qualitative interviews highlighted the impact of social recreational programs on people with dementia, caregivers and volunteers in the promotion of social connectedness, as well as the examination of barriers and facilitators to identify opportunities for the future improvement of ASDR programs that would benefit the dementia populations. The study findings revealed that the project ‘Living Well with Dementia’ has been able to successfully foster social connectedness through its volunteer-led social recreational programs by promoting the physical and mental well-being of people with dementia and their caregivers.Conclusion: Our study findings underscored the critical roles of volunteers who contributed to the success of community-based programs. Future research is needed to identify the opportunities to address current gaps in services and to strengthen the social recreational programs using evidence-based practices and client-centered approaches.Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at http://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2021.1950614.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".