Desirable Length of Time for Engaging Clients with Moderate Dementia in Preferred Therapeutic Recreation Interventions: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary aim of this pilot study was to determine the optimal length of time to engage older adults with moderate dementia in preferred therapeutic recreation interventions (TRIs). By elucidating the patterns of engagement within and between TRIs, this study offers valuable insights for recreation therapists (RTs), enabling them to more adeptly address the needs of this demographic. Key findings from the study indicate that TRIs with a duration of 35 minutes or less are more effective in promoting engagement among older adults with moderate dementia, compared to longer sessions. Higher engagement levels were also observed in programs that support independent participation, suggesting that autonomy plays a critical role in sustaining involvement. Moreover, TRIs designed for continuous participation, rather than those requiring invited or turn-based engagement, were associated with more favorable engagement outcomes. When examining patterns of social interaction, programs characterized by aggregate interactional formats yielded higher levels of engagement than those with more competitive or cooperative approaches. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying engagement in recreation settings and underscore the importance of program structure and delivery. The results inform practical recommendations for RTs, providing an evidence-informed rationale for selecting specific intervention types and optimizing program duration for individuals with moderate dementia. Suggestions are presented for future research projects.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".