A Pilot Study of a Video-Based Reminiscence Therapy Utilizing Media Archives for Early-Stage Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Reminiscence therapy (RT) is a commonly used non-pharmacological intervention for individuals with dementia, aimed at improving cognitive function and emotional well-being.However, traditional RT often faces limitations, including facilitator dependency and challenges in sustaining participant engagement.To address these challenges, a video-based RT (VBRT) program was developed in collaboration with MBC Dingding University.Methods: In this retrospective, single-arm pilot study, 23 individuals with early-stage dementia participated in 50-minute VBRT sessions, held twice weekly over six weeks at the Yangcheon Center for Dementia.Acceptability was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale evaluating satisfaction with session timing, location, instructor quality, content, and overall program.Engagement was measured by attendance rate.Cognitive outcomes were assessed using the Korean Mini-Mental State Examination and the Cognitive Impairment Screening Test.Subjective memory complaints and depressive symptoms were evaluated using the Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire and the short form of the Geriatric Depression Scale, respectively.Results: Participants reported high acceptability, with a median total satisfaction score of 4 (interquartile range [IQR], 4-5).However, the median attendance rate was 74.7% (IQR, 58-92%), which was lower than anticipated.No significant improvements were observed in cognitive, subjective memory, or mood outcomes.Sensitivity analyses suggested that participants with higher attendance (80%) exhibited a non-significant trend toward cognitive improvement.Conclusions: The VBRT program was well-received but demonstrated limited engagement and no significant cognitive or mood effects.Further randomized controlled trials with larger samples and strategies to enhance adherence are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 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".