EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF CHORAL SINGING ON CHANGE IN PERCEIVED DISTRESS FOR CARE PARTNERS OF PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Family care partners (CP) of persons with dementia (PwD) report high levels of psychological distress that impact many facets of their lives. Arts-based interventions have shown promise for improving psychological health. Here, we describe findings from the Voices in Motion (ViM) study, a weekly lifestyle intervention for CP-PwD dyads, with specific emphasis on examining the impact of choral singing on level and change in perceived distress for CP. Data from n=29 CP (Mage=67.7 years, 80% female) were used to examine change in caregiver distress, indexed using the Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI). ViM employed an intensive longitudinal design characterized by monthly retests embedded within 3.5-month choral seasons (up to 7 assessments per person). Choral seasons were separated by a 4-month summer break, yielding a naturalistic ABA experimental design optimal for evaluating the impact of choral singing on caregiver distress. Multilevel models of change with piecewise splines were fit; REML was employed due to its advantageous properties for small samples. A significant reduction in caregiver distress (-1.14 units per month, p<.01) was observed across the 3.3-month span of season 1. Following the 4-month summer break, level of caregiver distress at the outset of season 2 had increased back to initial baseline levels (ZBI =19.9 units – a moderate to borderline-high level), thereby underscoring the importance of the choir intervention. These findings suggest that lifestyle engagement may offer an effective complement for lessening the impact of caregiver distress for CP, with implications for the development of dementia care plans.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".