Therapeutic Touch in the Management of Responsive Behaviors in Patients with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate the use of therapeutic touch (TT) in the management of responsive behaviors in patients with dementia. METHODS: A randomized, double-blinded control trial was used to compare response to TT in a population with responsive behaviors in dementia, in 3 phases, pretreatment, treatment, and posttreatment each lasting 5 days. The participants were divided into three groups: experimental, placebo, and control. The experimental group received regular TT, the placebo group received mimic TT, and the control group received regular routine care. Behavior was observed and recorded by trained research assistants every 20 min during the study time throughout each of the phases. Modified Agitated Behavior Rating Scale (ABRS) and Revised Memory and Behavior Check (RMBC) scores were used to assess the behavioral symptoms of dementia throughout the study. RESULTS: All groups had decreasing RMBC scores during the pretreatment period, however; the experimental TT group was the only group whose RMBC scores continued to decrease during the treatment period. All groups had a similar pattern of rates of change in ABRS scores over the 15-day period, with no differential pattern of results related to experimental TT. CONCLUSION: Despite limited evidence, TT should be explored as an adjunctive therapy for reducing behavioral symptoms in individuals with dementia. Further research is needed to determine the effects of TT on responsive behaviors in dementia. There is a need for studies with larger sample sizes, equal distribution of participants between groups (in terms of dementia stages), and longer post study follow-ups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".