MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405960792 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igae098.1079

CO-CREATING A VIRTUAL REALITY PROGRAM WITH PEOPLE LIVING WITH DEMENTIA IN LONG-TERM CARE

2024· article· en· W4405960792 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lillian Hung, W. Ben Mortenson, Angelica Lim, Jennifer Boger, Joey Wong, Christine Wallsworth, Jim Mann, Lily Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)DementiaLong-term careVirtual realityAssisted livingGerontologyPsychologyHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceMedicineNursingPhysicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract People living with dementia in long-term care (LTC) are a diverse group with varied physical and cognitive abilities and backgrounds. Previous research has shown that virtual reality experiences can bring joy and foster the health and well-being of people living with dementia. A tailored approach based on cultural preferences, needs, abilities, disabilities, and contextual limitations is needed to foster practical implementation, uptake, and sustainability. This qualitative study harnessed the experiential knowledge of people with dementia, care partners and frontline staff to co-build a novel Virtual Reality Program in two Canadian LTC homes. We conducted focus groups and interviews with 10 residents living with dementia, 10 family care partners and 12 staff to explore their preferences on the video content and delivery methods. We also explored participants’ experiences in the co-creation process. Our interdisciplinary team, including people with dementia and family partners, researchers, clinicians, and trainees, analyzed the data thematically. We identified four themes: 1) Significance of culturally relevant and diverse videos to address heterogeneous population, 2) Acknowledgement of residents’ autonomy and choice in the co-creation process, 3) Feelings of satisfaction and motivation through contributing and learning, and 4) Appreciation of a respectful co-design environment. The results offer useful insights to inform future directions in co-designing safe and accessible virtual programs with people living with dementia in LTC research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207