Physical Activity, Social Support, and the Health of Dementia Caregivers: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been an international effort to improve the quality of care available to persons living with dementia and their caregivers. As such, community-based interventions designed to help mitigate the health effects associated with caregiving are essential. Physical activity (PA) and social support are two elements with the potential to enhance caregivers' health and may be beneficial to include when designing and implementing interventions. Thus, to inform implementation and future research, this scoping review sought to describe and identify what is already known about PA and/or social support and dementia caregivers' physical, mental and social well-being. METHOD: Following Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework, five databases (i.e., SPORTdiscus, CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO) were searched in October 2022 and February 2024. Studies were selected based on a specific inclusion criterion: (1) dementia caregivers (>18); (2) community-based PA and/or social support interventions; and (3) outcomes of overall health and well-being. Covidence was used to organize all relevant studies, and two researchers independently extracted all data. Knowledge users (i.e., dementia caregivers & community program providers) (n = 4) were consulted within a focus group to confirm or refute the results based on their lived experiences. RESULT: Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Ten studies examined PA; 12 studies examined social support; and 9 studies examined interventions inclusive of PA and social support. Regardless of the intervention type, the most common finding was participation led to enhanced mental well-being. No difference in health outcomes were found between interventions delivered in-person compared to online. Participation in joint reminiscence therapy was the only intervention to result in a decrease in health. All knowledge users agreed with this finding during the focus group and indicated reminiscence therapy may not be beneficial for all dementia caregivers. CONCLUSION: This review adds to our understanding of what is known about PA and/or social support and the health of dementia caregivers. It is evident participation in PA and/or social support is beneficial for the physical, mental and social well-being of dementia caregivers. The findings from this review may help to inform the development and improvement of community-based interventions for dementia caregivers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".