Feasibility and acceptability of virtual programs for people with dementia and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of the Oshawa Senior Community Centres (OSCC55 +) virtual programs (VP) in addressing the needs for social connection and interaction for people with dementia (PWD) and their informal caregivers (ICG). BACKGROUND: During the pandemic, PWD faced increased loneliness and reduced social interaction due to a loss of community programs. The OSCC55 + developed VPs to combat social isolation and provide respite for ICG. These efforts highlight the importance of accessible, and technology-based VPs for maintaining social connectedness for PWD. METHODS: A qualitative interpretive research design with PWD (n = 14) interviews and ICG focus group and one-on-one interviews (n = 11). This research explored the lived experiences of PWD and their ICG, examining the feasibility and acceptability of the VPs. RESULTS: The PWD and ICG interviews provided insight into the positive impacts of VP, challenges of VP, program barriers, program facilitating factors, and suggestions for future improvement for the OSCC55 + VPs. Participants highlighted that the VP created an option for them to remain socially connected to their community; while also outlining the positive impact on reducing loneliness, challenges with technology use, the importance of involving younger generations and volunteers, and the need for more culturally inclusive programs. CONCLUSIONS: The VP developed by OSCC55 + were perceived as effective and useful for PWD and their ICG, helping to reduce feelings of loneliness and relieving caregiving tasks. These findings suggest that VP can complement in-person programs in the future, offering a hybrid model that leverages the strengths of both approaches to better meet the needs of PWD and ICG.
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 | 0.018 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".