Dyadic Recreation Interventions for Older Adults with Dementia and Their Family Caregivers: Two Case Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therapeutic dyads offer an innovative recreational therapy approach to support community-dwelling individuals with dementia and their caregivers. This report presents two case studies from Taiwan, demonstrating a dyadic recreational therapy intervention tailored to individual family units. Each unit included one older adult with mild to moderate cognitive impairment and their primary family caregiver. Over six months, both members of each dyad participated in 16 two-hour home-based sessions designed around their shared leisure interests. Data were collected from each participant—care recipient and caregiver—before and after the intervention using accelerometers, standardized assessments, and qualitative interviews. Observations suggested potential improvements in physical activity, functional fitness, and sleep quality for individuals with dementia, while caregivers reported a reduced sense of caregiver burden. Qualitative findings highlighted enhanced social interaction, positive shifts in leisure attitudes, and increased joint participation in meaningful activities. These case studies underscore the potential of dyadic recreational therapy as a culturally sensitive, family-centered approach to dementia care in Taiwan.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".