Peer group leadership for dementia health risk reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background With the worldwide number of persons with dementia predicted to triple by 2050 and a current lack of curative treatment [1], reduction of modifiable risks is increasingly important. In 2020 the Lancet Commission on Dementia, Prevention, and Care reported on twelve health risk management factors that could potentially reduce the risk of dementia [2]. Peer support groups have a history in supporting self‐management of health risk behaviour [3,4]. We wanted to learn if older adults have successfully provided peer leadership in group interventions for older adult health management. Method Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews we searched three databases (Medline, Embase, and AgeLine) for articles describing older adult leadership for older adult health improvement in older adult health promotion or improvement groups. From the initial 16,000+ results, 19 studies met the criteria for full text screening and analysis. Result Of the 19 studies, 12 used peer leaders and seven had a reciprocal support model. For those using peer leaders, training varied from none to 30 weeks. Older adult leadership or reciprocal support occurred in a range of settings. There were studies examining an older adult run seniors centre and a supportive community engagement program. Six studies focused on diabetes or hypertension, conditions linked with dementia risks. Interventions lasted from four weeks to 24 years. No quantifiable patterns of health management were observed. The only pattern that emerges is that positive physical and behaviour changes occurred more often when peer leaders or co‐facilitators were expected to motivate or encourage participant engagement or mutual support and where expectations included participant goal setting behaviour. Most of the studies of 12 weeks or less did not see lasting changes. Conclusions When asked participants preferred and appreciated peer leadership; however, peer leadership itself was not sufficient for positive health changes. Research with a sharing and empowerment focus within groups often led to improved self‐efficacy and self‐management behaviours. Research with longer participant engagement may result in longer lasting health habits.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".