MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386802409 · doi:10.1177/14713012231197144

The dementia-inclusive choices in exercise project: Using participatory action research to improve physical activity supports for persons with dementia

2023· article· en· W4386802409 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura E. Middleton, Chelsea Pelletier, Melissa Koch, Rebekah Norman, Sherry L. Dupuis, Arlene Astell, Lora Giangregorio, Felicia Hart, William Heibein, Crystal Hughes, Carole Johannesson, Bethany Pearce, Kayla Regan, Cindy Rossignoli, Melissa K. Andrew, Jacqueline A. Pettersen, Shannon Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsHome and Community Care Support ServicesRegional Municipality of WaterlooGovernment of OntarioUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer SocietyConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissement
KeywordsDementiaPsychologyInclusion (mineral)UsabilityStakeholderParticipatory action researchMedical educationNursingMedicineComputer sciencePublic relationsHuman–computer interactionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.462
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.101 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207