MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116948418 · doi:10.1002/alz70860_102362

Improving Cognition in Older Adults in Community Housing (ICOACH)

2025· article· en· W7116948418 on OpenAlexaff
Bernadette Mdawar, Christopher Bowie, Tarek K. Rajji, Angela Golas

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionMental healthKey (lock)Older peopleAging in placeDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mental health conditions, often associated with cognitive impairment, significantly contribute to seniors' vulnerabilities. This, in turn, reinforces the misconception that the elderly are a burden to society, further intensifying social isolation and physical disability. Growing evidence supports the use of multimodal interventions as both a preventative and therapeutic tool for seniors with mental health conditions. Our goal is to design an integrated intervention that is both feasible and tolerable, for older adult with mental illness living in senior community housing. METHOD: The ICOACH is an open-label study of a 12-week integrated program combining computerized cognitive remediation (CCR) with social and physical activities. The program's activities were iteratively modified based on qualitative analysis of participants' feedback, which was gathered through semi-structured interviews, as well as their responses to the Satisfaction and System Usability Scale (SUS). RESULT: Of the fifteen enrolled participants from 3 different community housing locations, eleven completed the full program. Reasons for withdrawal included relocating to a new residence, conflicts with other participants, and a loss of interest in the program. Baseline characteristics were for group 1 (n = 5; mean age[SD] years=75 [7.2]; mean MoCA [SD] = 20.6 [4.3]), group 2 (n = 6; mean age[SD] years=69.3 [7.2]; mean MoCA [SD] = 22 [3.8]) and group 3 (n = 4; mean age[SD] years=71 [10]; mean MoCA [SD] = 18.5 [4.2]). All participants were highly satisfied with the program, notably 72.7% of participants agreed or somewhat agreed that the program had improved their quality of life in their housing. There was an upward trend in the usability of the CCR component, with each successive group showing improved usability. Attendance for social activities was the highest across all groups, followed by CCR and then physical activities. Conflicting participants' medical and social appointments and site-related logistical issues were main external barriers for attendance. Internal barriers included reported cognitive difficulties and low motivation. The role of the interventionist and break time were highly regarded as key facilitating factors. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that an integrated program is well tolerated among older adults with mental health conditions living in community housing, and highlighted key barriers for program implementation in this setting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→