Virtual reality to promote wellbeing in persons with dementia: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual Reality (VR) technologies have increasingly been considered potentially valuable tools in dementia-related research and could serve as non-pharmacological therapy to improve quality of life (QoL) and wellbeing for persons with dementia (PwD). In this scoping review, we summarize peer-reviewed articles published up to Jan-21, 2021, on the use of VR to promote wellbeing in PwD. Eighteen manuscripts (reporting on 19 studies) met the inclusion criteria, with a majority published in the past 2 years. Two reviewers independently coded the articles regarding A) intended clinical outcomes and effectiveness of the interventions, B) study sample (characteristics of the participants), C) intervention administration (by whom, what setting), D) experimental methods (design/instruments), and E) technical properties of the VR-systems (hardware/devices and software/content). Emotional outcomes were by far the most common objectives of the interventions, reported in seventeen (89.5%) of the included articles. Outcomes addressing social engagement and personhood in PwD have not been thoroughly explored using VR. Based on the positive impact of VR, future opportunities lie in identifying special features and customization of the hardware/software to afford the most benefit to different sub-groups of the target population. Overall, this review found that VR represents a promising tool for promoting wellbeing in PwD, with positive or neutral impact reported on emotional, social, and functional aspects of wellbeing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".