Understandings and Perceived Benefits of Outdoor-Based Support for People Living with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of the outdoors for supporting well-being is recognized, but less is known about the role of the outdoors in supporting people living with dementia. The aim of this study was to examine three stakeholder groups' understandings about outdoor-based support and care for people living with dementia to help understand what might be done to maximize the outdoors as a source of support for people living with dementia. Data were collected in Southern Ontario, Canada, between January and June 2023 via 1-1 interviews (n = 12); four focus groups (n = 17) with staff from organizations providing outdoor recreation or social programming; six in-person focus groups (n = 37); and 2 outdoor-based walking focus groups (n = 17) conducted with people living with dementia, care partners, and older adults. All interviews and focus groups, other than the walking focus groups where the field notes were used, were audio recorded and fully transcribed verbatim. Within and across data sets, thematic analysis was conducted. We report findings relating to the challenges of achieving full participation in outdoor-based activities; perceived physical, social, and mental health benefits of outdoor activities; stigma; and overcoming perceived risks. The importance of the outdoors for people living with dementia and their care partners is evident. There are implications for care policy and practice relating to the promotion of (social) health and well-being for people living with dementia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".