MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390200456 · doi:10.1002/alz.071289

The Effectiveness of Reminiscence Therapy in Improving Cognitive Functions And Psychological Wellbeing in Older Adults With Early Dementia ‐ The Randomized Control Trial

2023· article· en· W4390200456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank Ho‐yin Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeriatric Depression ScaleMoodDementiaPsychologyRandomized controlled trialClinical psychologyCognitionIntervention (counseling)Depression (economics)PsychiatryMedicineDepressive symptomsDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Reminiscence therapy (RT) is a trending type of non‐pharmacological intervention in dementia care. RT is using life histories recalling and re‐experiencing the life events in older people in order to improve their psychological well‐being through the volitional or non‐volitional process of recollecting memories from their past. Method Participants' selection inclusion criteria are: (a) aged 65 or above, (b) early stage of dementia that was screened by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) with scoring of 17‐19, and (c) can read written instruction and consent. Participants were randomly assigned by block randomization with randomized block procedure. The participants attended eight group sessions, with each session lasting for 60 minutes. Sessions were administered two times a week over a 4‐week period. Participants' depressive symptoms were evaluated by Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Subjective well‐being (the cognitive components) was measured by Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS), mood change as measured by Visual Analogue Mood Scale (VAMS). All these evaluation were conducted baseline, mid‐way evaluation and post‐evaluation by a registered Occupational Therapist. Result Forty older people (29 male and 11 female) were eligible for the study. There was significant difference on depressive symptoms (p = .02, t = ‐2.38), mood change (p = .03, t = ‐3.38), but marginally significant in subjective well‐being (p = .05, t = ‐1.03) between intervention and control group. Further analyses were conducted whether depressive symptoms and mood change effect individuals' subjective well‐being. A two‐way ANOVA revealed that there was not a statistically significant interaction between the effects of depressive symptoms and mood change (F(3, 16) = 1.242, p = .311). Simple main effects analysis showed that depressive symptoms did not have a statistically significant effect on subjective well‐being (p = .975). Simple main effects analysis showed that mood change did have a statistically significant effect on subjective well‐being (p < .000). Conclusion The findings of this study affirmed the benefit of RT to older people with early stage of dementia through improving depressive symptoms, mood and marginally on their subjective well‐being. The research data available support the inclusion of a structured RT as a part of the routine care given to older people. There are some limitations of our study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→