A Comparative Study of Residents’ Quality of Life in Dementia Care Facilities: Traditional Settings vs. Green Care Farms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: This study investigates the differences in behavior and quality of life between residents with dementia living in a traditional care facility and those residing on a green care farm. Methods: Conducted in Vancouver, Canada, and Laarbeek, the Netherlands, this observational study utilized a mixed sampling strategy that combined random and purposive sampling. Nine residents with dementia participated in the research. The physical environments were evaluated using the Therapeutic Environment Screening Survey for Nursing Homes (TESS-NH), while data on participants’ behaviors and quality of life were gathered through Dementia Care Mapping (DCM). Results: The evaluation of the physical environments indicated that the green care farm provides a more enriched, sensory, and homelike atmosphere compared to the traditional facility. Residents at the green care farm engaged more frequently in social interactions and demonstrated higher levels of positive engagement such as movements related to daily routines than those residing in the traditional facility. Conclusion/Implications: This study suggests evidence that well-designed physical environments can exert both direct or indirect positive effects on the behavior and quality of life of older adults with dementia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".