Dementia-Inclusive Choices for Exercise Toolkit: Impact on the Knowledge, Perspectives, and Practices of Exercise Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity improves the well-being of persons living with dementia but few exercise programs include them. The Dementia-Inclusive Choices for Exercise (DICE) toolkit aims to improve exercise providers' understanding of dementia and ability to support persons living with dementia in physical activity. We evaluated the co-designed DICE toolkit with exercise providers using a mixed-methods approach comprising pre/post questionnaires and interviews and reflection diaries. Among 16 participants, self-efficacy for exercise delivery to persons living with dementia and both knowledge and attitudes toward dementia significantly improved. Thematic analysis suggested participants (a) had a deeper understanding of the variability of dementia, (b) were planning for equitable access for persons living with dementia, (c) planned to promote social connection through exercise, and (d) were optimistic for future engagement with persons living with dementia. The DICE toolkit may improve exercise providers' knowledge and confidence to plan proactively to support persons living with dementia in programs and services.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".