MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411002916 · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00504

Physical activity–based interventions in the management of dementia or cognitive impairment in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol

2025· review· en· W4411002916 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C Ibekaku, Lawrence A. Adebusoye, Lori E. Weeks, Parisa Ghanouni, Nazanin Nasiri, Chukwuebuka P. Onyekere, Caitlin McArthur

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLDementiaPsycINFOPsychological interventionSystematic reviewGerontologyGrey literatureMEDLINEMedicineScopusCognitionPsychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to map the existing literature on physical activity-based interventions for the management of dementia and cognitive impairment in sub-Saharan Africa. INTRODUCTION: Dementia and cognitive impairment are growing public health concerns in sub-Saharan Africa, where the number of affected individuals is expected to rise significantly. Given the high rate of dementia underdiagnosis in this region, many individuals experiencing cognitive decline may not have a formal dementia diagnosis. Physical activity-based interventions, conceptualized in this review as both structured exercise programs (eg, aerobic training, resistance exercises) and unstructured physical activities (eg, walking, dancing, or daily movement-based activities), are increasingly used in cognitive impairment dementia care. However, most research in this area has been conducted in other regions, with limited knowledge of how these interventions are applied in sub-Saharan African countries. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The review will include studies focusing on individuals with dementia or cognitive impairment, where physical activity - based interventions are implemented. The setting will be sub-Saharan African countries, with no restrictions on the language or date of publication. METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A comprehensive search will be conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Embase, and African Journals Online databases. Gray literature sources, including Google Scholar and Database of African Theses and Dissertations-Research (DATAD-R), will also be searched. Data will be charted and summarized descriptively, with the results presented in narrative and visual formats. REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF https://osf.io/gz65k.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.015
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.015

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207