Social, Physical Environmental and Organizational Factors related to Recreational Activity of Residents with Dementia in Long-Term Care Homes: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Recreational activity is a rising topic in long-term care settings as it contributes to residents’ physical and emotional wellbeing. As residents’ abilities of sustaining and initiating activities decline, the care environment becomes vital in supporting residents maintain meaningful engagement in activities and life. Understanding how various aspects of the care environment influence residents’ opportunities and quality of recreational activity engagement is a timely and relevant topic in the context of improving quality of life for residents with dementia. The research questions guiding this scoping review are: (1) How do staff characteristics and organisational policies influence residents’ levels of participation in planned and self-directed activities? (2) What is the role of the physical environmental features in common spaces of the care setting in supporting residents’ activity participation? Methods and analysis This review will follow the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review methodology. The search strategy will be applied to five bibliographic and citation databases. Study selection will occur in two steps: first, two reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of all search results, and second, the first author will independently conduct a full-text review. Data will be extracted from the included studies and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis. The extracted data will be presented in a narrative format, accompanied by tables that reflect the review’s objectives. Ethics and dissemination Since the methodology of the study involves collecting data from publicly available publications, it does not require ethics approval. The findings will offer valuable insights to inform the design, practice and research of long-term care and recreational activities. The scoping review results will be disseminated through an open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Strengths and Limitations This review offers a targeted view of environmental aspects related to the recreational activity of residents with dementia in long-term care settings. Evidence of both physical and social dimensions of the care environment related to recreational activities will be extracted and summarized. The review takes an inclusive approach to defining activities. Therefore, the findings will synthesize not only environmental factors that impact programmed recreational activities, but also those that encourage or limit opportunities for various kinds of meaningful spontaneous engagement. Being a scoping rather than a systematic review, the quality of the evidence will not be evaluated. The results and recommendations of scoping reviews cannot be graded since methodological appraisal of the quality of included studies will not be conducted. The review will be limited to English language studies. Review will only include studies based in long-term care homes, studies evaluated the recreational activities in adult day care centres, hospitals or other healthcare settings will not be captured.
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 | 0.094 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.009 |
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".