Understanding physical activity interventions for people living with dementia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited research focused on lifestyle interventions among people living with dementia with recent systematic reviews primarily focused on the impact of exercise on cognition. However, functional abilities and quality of life (QoL) are the outcomes most consistently prioritized by people living with dementia, care partners, and healthcare professionals. We conducted a systematic review to understand the impact of two lifestyle interventions (physical activity, nutrition) on the functional abilities, QoL, and nutritional status (nutrition interventions only) of people with dementia living in the community. The findings here focus on the effects of physical activity interventions. METHOD: Systematic literature searches for peer-reviewed intervention studies were conducted in four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL). Articles were exported to Covidence, where duplicates were removed and two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments. A narrative synthesis was conducted. A meta-analysis is currently ongoing. RESULT: Fifty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Data extraction revealed diverse study designs, characteristics and types of physical activity interventions, and measures for functional abilities and QoL. Nine studies measured the QoL of people living with dementia using the self-reported Quality of Life Alzheimer's Disease (QoLAD) tool. Four of these studies showed a significant improvement in the QoLAD. Twenty-five studies reported using the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) to measure mobility. Fifteen of these studies demonstrated an improvement in the TUG, with nine of the studies revealing significant improvements. Six studies measured functional capacity using the 6-minute walk test. Two of these studies showed a significant improvement in the 6-minute walk test. CONCLUSION: The results from this review highlight the impact of physical activity interventions on QoL and mobility for people living with dementia. The meta-analysis will provide quantitative estimates for the effects of physical activity interventions on specific outcomes related to functional abilities and QoL. Furthermore, exploring the effectiveness by intervention dose and delivery in subgroup analyses will also allow us to better inform guidelines regarding interventions, programs, and policy related to physical activity interventions. Lastly, we will identify knowledge gaps where research is needed.
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 | 0.024 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".