‘Changing the Focus’: Co-Design of a Novel Approach for Engaging People with Dementia in Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Promoting physical activity among people living with dementia is critical to maximise physical, cognitive and social benefits; yet the lack of knowledge, skills and confidence among health professionals, informal care partners and people with dementia deters participation. As the initial phase of a larger feasibility study, co-design was employed to develop a new model of community care, ‘Changing the Focus’, to facilitate the physical activity participation of older people living with mild dementia. Methods: Co-design methodology was utilised with nine stakeholders (with experience in referring to or providing physical activity programs and/or contributing to policy and program planning) over three workshops plus individual interviews with four care partners of people with dementia. Insights were gathered on the physical activity for people with mild dementia, referral pathways were explored and ‘personas’ were developed and refined. Materials and resources to support exercise providers and referrers to work effectively with people with mild dementia were finalised. Results: Three ‘personas’ emerged from the co-design sessions, aligned with stages of behaviour change: (1) hesitant to engage; (2) preparing to engage; and (3) actively engaged. Referral pathway discussions identified challenges related to limited resources, limited knowledge, access constraints and individual factors. Opportunities were classified as using champions, streamlining processes, recognising triggers for disengagement, influencing beliefs and attitudes, and means of communication. Conclusion: This study captured the views of physical activity referrers and providers and informal care partners in an inclusive and iterative manner. The use of co-design ensured a robust approach to facilitating participation in formal and informal physical activity options for people living with mild dementia. This study has provided the necessary framework from which to develop and test training and resources for the next stage of intervention (a feasibility trial) to improve physical activity participation for people 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 | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".