The effects of singing interventions on quality of life, mood and levels of agitation in community-dwelling people living with dementia: A quantitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Music-based interventions have been found to benefit people living with dementia and have positive impacts on cognition and well-being. Most people with dementia live in the community and compared to people with dementia in residential care often have less access to music-based interventions. There are many forms of music interventions and singing has shown particular promise; in the realm of music interventions. It is important to determine what aspects of music interventions yield the most benefits for people with dementia. This review aimed to synthesise evidence on the impacts of singing interventions on quality of life, mood and neuropsychiatric symptoms for community-dwelling people with dementia. Methods: We systematically searched three electronic databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science) for studies reporting on singing interventions with community-dwelling people with dementia. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported on a singing intervention with people living with dementia that included an outcome measure of quality of life, mood or agitation. Fourteen publications were identified and included in this review, with a total of n = 361 people with dementia. Results: Despite some inconsistencies across the literature, evidence suggests that singing interventions led to an improvement in mood and a reduction in agitation levels in people living with dementia. There was no strong evidence to suggest that singing interventions led to significant improvements in quality of life. Conclusions: This review highlights the potential of singing interventions as an effective psychosocial intervention for community-dwelling people with dementia. For key developments in this area, we urge that future studies include a control group where possible which will allow for more robust examinations of singing interventions and allow intervention effects to be distinguished from general deterioration in dementia symptoms over time.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".