Co‐viewing as a tool to enhance emotional communication in dementia caregiver–care recipient dyads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communication difficulties are among the earliest symptoms faced by people living with dementia (PWD), progressively worsening as the disease advances. These challenges often result in reduced interactions with caregivers and a growing sense of isolation for both members of the dyad. Despite awareness of the importance of emotional connection in dementia care, ecological interventions remain limited in long-term care settings. Studies suggest that co-viewing audiovisual content with positive emotional valence fosters emotional communication between PWD and caregivers, reduces caregiver burden, and enhances empathy. Our previous studies have also shown that co-viewing induces physiological synchrony, such as alignment in heart rates and electrodermal activity, between participants (Ansaldo et al., 2024). METHOD: This study involved eight PWD and their caregivers, including four family members and four professionals, from a long-term care facility. Over three weeks, caregivers co-viewed 20-minute audiovisual clips with PWD 2-3 times per week. The clips featured themes such as nature, music, and humor, known to evoke positive emotional responses. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with caregivers to explore the perceived impact of co-viewing on interactions and emotional connection within the dyad. RESULT: Across all caregivers (N = 8), co-viewing significantly enhanced communication and socialization within the dyads. The activity elicited verbal and nonverbal reactions from PWD, fostering meaningful exchanges. Professional caregivers reported that the sessions helped them better understand and connect with the residents, while family caregivers found the intervention provided a much-needed communication tool to navigate challenging interactions with their loved ones. Caregivers observed positive effects on both themselves and PWD, noting feelings of enjoyment and calmness during the sessions. They highlighted that PWD were actively engaged in the activity, as evidenced by their reactions and sustained attention to the screen, which contrasted with their usual state of apathy. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the potential of co-viewing as a strategy to promote emotional communication within caregiver-PWD dyads. Its simplicity and adaptability make it a promising intervention for broader implementation in long-term care settings. Future studies will analyze specific communication behaviors within dyads during co-viewing sessions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".