Group Reminiscence Programs for Older Adults Without Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reminiscence interventions have been tested with people with and without cognitive impairment. However, the literature on reminiscence interventions for the latter is less extensive. The purpose of the current scoping review was to list and describe group session reminiscence protocols used with older adults without cognitive impairment and not involving psychotherapy. Arksey and O'Malley's five stages scoping framework was used for this review. Seven databases were searched, and nine articles were included. Results show the heterogeneity of reminiscence programs available for older adults without cognitive impairment and highlight that key elements for replication are often lacking. Well-defined reminiscence programs should be selected for replication and evaluation studies. However, few well-defined reminiscence programs not involving psychotherapy are available for older adults without cognitive impairment. [ Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 62 (3), 15–21.]
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".