A Scoping Review of Outdoor Activities for People Living with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Outdoor or nature‐based activities can potentially offer benefits to improve the quality of life for people living with dementia (PLWD). The aim of this scoping review is to gain a clear understanding of current studies on outdoor activities for PLWD and their caregivers, as well as to identify gaps in the literature that may require further research. Method We systematically searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); APA PsycINFO (Ovid); CINAHL; Cochrane followed the guidelines recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018). We included primary studies that met the following criteria:1) the study population includes either PLWD or people self‐identified as caring for people with dementia; 2) study outcomes are related to outdoor activities and/or nature; 3) the study report effects of how the outdoor activities change the diagnosis of dementia either qualitatively and/or quantitatively; 4) primary studies and literature reviews, dissertations, conference presentations or discussion papers, peer reviews and non‐peer reviewed; 6) all geographical areas but published in English and year 1980 to present Result Our initial search resulted in 7678 potentially relevant titles and abstracts. This number was decreased to 299 articles for the full‐text review. The extracted data have been charted by the following categories: authors, year of publication, study location, aims/purpose, characteristics of included studies, methods, outcomes, and key findings. The findings were summarized using frequency counts of concepts and characteristics. Thematic analysis was undertaken which identified four themes. More specifically, we identified 1) Benefits of outdoor or nature‐based activities; 2) Interventions to improve quality of life; 3) Barriers and challenges to accessing outdoors and nature; 4) Recommendations for outdoors or nature‐based activities. Conclusion There is growing evidence for the benefit of outdoor activities, recommendations to improve outdoor activities and which interventions are most beneficial among people with dementia. There is limited information about factors which may act as barriers for people with dementia which will be important to ensure wider access to these 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 | 0.029 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".