Including formal and informal caregivers in the development of Play Intervention for Dementia: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Play Intervention for Dementia is a practice initiative using play to help people living with dementia (PWD) experience engagements, autonomy, and cognitive stimulation. This program was developed under a participatory paradigm, with extensive contribution from formal and informal caregivers. This article describes how caregivers contributed to the practice principles, materials, and assessment during the development phase of Play Intervention for Dementia through community-based participatory research (CBPR). METHODS: Three service supervisors, 16 formal caregivers and 14 informal caregivers from the community participated in this study. Based on CBPR, the study progressed in a reflexive, iterative and collaborative way. Data were collected from diverse sources, including practice journals, observation notes and reflexive focus group interviews. Two trained qualitative researchers conducted thematic analysis on the data collected, with focus on practical skills, outcomes, and caregivers' general experience during the intervention. RESULTS: The therapeutic and liberating power of play was thoroughly discussed by the caregivers. They considered play as an innovative way to understand, engage, and connect with the PWD. Also, improvement in energy level, motivation and communicative capacity was observed among the PWD. The researcher and caregivers collaboratively refined and designed the protocol of Play Intervention for Dementia, adding localized principles and games to the original design. CONCLUSION: Caregivers found play to be a meaningful way to engage with PWD, as it provided an equal platform for them. The intervention also enabled them to reflect upon ageing and disease at a deeper level. Caregivers have contributed significantly to the refinement and contextualisation of the intervention. The efficiency of the refined program should be further tested on a larger scale.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".