RESUMEN
The importance of the outdoors for supporting well-being is recognized, but less is known about the role of the outdoors in supporting people living with dementia. The aim of this study was to examine three stakeholder groups' understandings about outdoor-based support and care for people living with dementia to help understand what might be done to maximize the outdoors as a source of support for people living with dementia. Data were collected in Southern Ontario, Canada, between January and June 2023 via 1-1 interviews (n = 12); four focus groups (n = 17) with staff from organizations providing outdoor recreation or social programming; six in-person focus groups (n = 37); and 2 outdoor-based walking focus groups (n = 17) conducted with people living with dementia, care partners, and older adults. All interviews and focus groups, other than the walking focus groups where the field notes were used, were audio recorded and fully transcribed verbatim. Within and across data sets, thematic analysis was conducted. We report findings relating to the challenges of achieving full participation in outdoor-based activities; perceived physical, social, and mental health benefits of outdoor activities; stigma; and overcoming perceived risks. The importance of the outdoors for people living with dementia and their care partners is evident. There are implications for care policy and practice relating to the promotion of (social) health and well-being for people living with dementia.
Asunto(s)
Demencia , Grupos Focales , Humanos , Demencia/psicología , Demencia/terapia , Femenino , Masculino , Anciano , Ontario , Persona de Mediana Edad , Caminata , Recreación , Anciano de 80 o más Años , AdultoRESUMEN
What constrains people's ability to learn from experience about the effectiveness of practice testing versus restudying for memory (i.e., the testing effect)? Across two cycles, participants studied word pairs, practiced each pair through either restudying or testing, predicted how many pairs they would recall for each strategy, then completed a critical test on the pairs. During this test, participants either received feedback about the number of pairs they had correctly recalled or made postdictions about their performance for each strategy (i.e., generated their own feedback). During both cycles, participants predicted they would recall an equivalent number of tested and restudied pairs, although they actually recalled more tested pairs. However, when participants experienced a larger testing effect, they estimated recall performance more accurately for each strategy and updated their knowledge about the testing effect. Thus, peoples' ability to learn from experience about the testing effect is primarily constrained not by a failure to initiate the metacognitive processes required to monitor and track recall performance by strategy, but by the metacognitive burden of discriminating between small differences in recall between tested versus restudied material. In summary, people can learn from experience about the testing effect when the metacognitive burden is lifted.