The dementia-inclusive choices in exercise project: Using participatory action research to improve physical activity supports for persons with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with dementia have the right to equal inclusion in rehabilitation, including physical activity. However, the perspectives of persons with dementia are rarely integrated into decision-making related to physical activity programming, services, and supports. Here, we describe the participatory action research (PAR) approach used to develop the Dementia-Inclusive Choices for Exercise (DICE) toolkit, which aims to increase the quality and number of physical activity opportunities available to persons with dementia. The DICE Research Team included persons with dementia, a family care partner, exercise professionals, community and dementia service providers, health care professionals, and researchers who worked to: 1) Engage/maintain the Research Team; 2) Set/navigate ways of engagement; 3) Understand barriers to physical activity; 4) Prioritize the audience and actions; 5) Develop the toolkit; 6) Conduct usability testing; and 7) Implement and evaluate. Guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel, and informed by interviews, focus groups, and existing research, our PAR Team chose to prioritize training exercise providers; exercise providers can enable exercise for persons with dementia if they understand common changes with dementia and how to support persons with dementia in exercise. The content and format of the toolkit was co-developed: drafted by our Research Team, adapted through a stakeholder workshop, and refined through iterative development and usability testing. The product of our PAR process, the DICE toolkit, includes videos meant to destigmatize dementia, training modules and a training manual for exercise providers, a physical activity handout for persons with dementia, and wallet cards to help persons with dementia communicate their abilities, needs, and preferences. Our usability study indicated that the toolkit could be used by exercise providers and may improve attitudes about dementia. Our vision is that our co-developed DICE toolkit will empower exercise providers to improve physical activity opportunities and support for persons with dementia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.103 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".