Evaluation of Minds in Motion, a fitness program for people living with dementia and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Participants exhibited the most improvement in their upper and lower body strength exercises over 8 weeks and indicated the MiM fitness program should be implemented for people with dementia and their caregivers. • Minimal improvement was identified within the lower body flexibility test through the chair sit and reach exercise. • Nine of ten participants agreed that they enjoyed MiM. Fitness is associated with better physical and mental outcomes in people living with dementia (PWD). This study evaluated Minds in Motion, a program designed to improve the physical fitness of PWD and their care partners (CP). Participants completed an 8-week program combining exercise and mindfulness recreational activities. Data were collected through a retrospective mixed-method design. Participants, staff, and volunteers completed data collection. Participants experienced significant improvements in chair stands (+12.9%), bicep curls (+17.2%), and 8 feet up & go (+10.5%) but not in the chair sit and reach exercise. Almost all of the participants (99%) enjoyed the program and staff and volunteers (99%) self-reported improvement in their skills in working with people with dementia, with a strong reduction in the proportion of staff and volunteers disclosing “very limited skill” in dealing with PWD, from 15 to 18% to 9–12% of respondents. This study, as an extension of the pilot, concluded that Minds in Motion program had a positive impact on PWD and CP's physical functioning following the program fitness training combined with mindfulness recreational activities, which aligned with their reported program satisfaction. The “sit and reach” exercise, may not be appropriate for them. Together, these findings highlight how fitness programs can assist PWD and CP with improved functioning through strength building.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".