Experiences of People Living with Dementia and their Care Partners in Participating in Outdoor Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is increasing evidence for non‐pharmacological interventions to prevent dementia and delay disease progression. Outdoor recreational activities, such as visits to local parks, may help improve behavioural symptoms of dementia, cognition, and quality of life for both people living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners. However, little is currently known about the experiences of PLWD and care partners about participating in outdoor activities. Understanding their experiences will help inform interventions and policies to promote participation in outdoor activities. Our objectives are to understand the experiences of PLWD and care partners in participating in outdoor activities. Methods We conducted semi‐structured interviews with PLWD and care partners, either alone or in dyads. Self‐reported characteristics of PLWD and care partners were recorded by online surveys. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Interview questions included questions about the following topics: individuals relationships to outdoor activities; how these relationships may have changed over time; their current patterns of outdoor activities; perceived benefits of outdoor activities; potential risks of outdoor activities; and facilitators and barriers to participating in activities. The transcripts of interviews were coded by two independent members of the research team to identify common themes. Result A total of 10 participants (7 care partners; 3 PLWD) have participated in interviews to date. Themes identified from interviews include: 1.) Outdoor activities help people maintain a sense of identity and connection with their lives before being diagnosed with dementia; 2.) Both a diagnosis of dementia, stage of dementia, and physical changes associated with aging impact on the types of activities people participate in; 3.) Outdoor activities are associated with psychological benefits for PLWD and care partners; 4.) There are unique considerations for PLWD and care partners that need to be considered when designing outdoor spaces or programs for PLWD. Conclusion Outdoor activities are important to PLWD and care partners and help maintain connections to individuals' identities and are perceived as important to maintaining quality of life. The design of outdoor spaces and activities programs for PLWD and care partners need to incorporate their perspectives to maximize participation and benefits associated with outdoor activities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".