Part 2: Aging
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AgingBackground: Health and social care are facing unprecedented challenges due to the changing patterns of disease, the demanding expectations of service users, financial restrictions and an ever increasing ageing population.The effect of these challenges are observed in the increases in demand for, and use of, health and social care, the cost of caring and the need for more qualified carers.Assistive technologies, in particular digital technologies, are being heralded as part of the solution to provide sustainable social care services.Human relationships are paramount in social care across the life course and are important for the care workforce as giving care often has value for the care giver.Protecting autonomy and upholding the right to human relationships is integral to treating older social care users with dignity.If assistive technologies are to be of benefit to future generations of people in need of assistance we posit that a broader community discussion about the value, worth and place of assistive technologies in social care is required to help inform and to realize policy ambitions and to meet the social care needs of older adults.The aim of this research was therefore to identify key questions for future dialogue.Method: A systematic literature search with a narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify potential research questions for debate.Using free text terms, synonyms and subject headings relating to assistive technology and social care, a systematic search of articles published in English between January 2000 and December 2018 were sourced from Medline (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsychINFO (ProQuest), Social Science Premium Collection (ProQuest), British Library Social Welfare Portal and the EThOS databases.Policy documents and discussion pieces on digital technology use in social care were also reviewed as they demonstrate emergent thinking around societal, ethical and moral issues.Record titles and abstracts were assessed by research team members.After removing duplicates, 2473 records were identified for review.Sixty-seven full-text copies of items thought to meet the review inclusion criteria were obtained and assessed against these criteria.Forty-two items fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Eligibility criteria were: items had to be written in English and had to describe and/or report on the use of assistive technology in a social care setting for older people.Disagreements were resolved by consensus within the research team.Key results: Three distinct questions emerged from the data for broader discussion: (1) What are the implications of placing elders in a position where they are 'cared for' by technology devices?(2) If assistive care technologies fail to provide assistance as good as people, is it right that limited resources are invested in devices instead of the social care workforce?(3) Whose interests are being serviced: the people who are caring, the people who are being cared for or the market?Conclusion: To ensure that the promises and benefits of assistive technologies in social care are realized a clearer understanding of the importance of relational care and people's interdependence is required by engaging a wider audience in the discussion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,146 | 0,044 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».