Resident-, family-, and staff-identified goals for rehabilitation of long-term care residents with dementia: a qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia can benefit from rehabilitation to improve function and quality of life. However, specific goals for rehabilitation with this population are not always clear. The purpose of this study was to describe the goals for rehabilitation for LTC residents with dementia from the perspective of residents, family, and staff. METHODS: This was a phenomenological qualitative study. LTC residents with moderate to severe dementia, family members, and staff were recruited from two LTC homes in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and field notes from observations with residents while they were being active within the home. Data were analyzed via the principles of thematic content analysis, mapped onto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Model, and reported by the participant group (i.e., residents, family, or staff). RESULTS: The 15 participants were three female residents aged 82 to 98 years, seven predominantly (86%) female family members aged 56 to 74 years, and five staff members (two females, three males, aged 22 to 55 years) who were physiotherapists, a physiotherapy assistant, a healthcare aide, and a registered licenced practical nurse. Most identified goals fell within the activities and participation constructs of the ICF model and focused on maintaining or improving function, mobility, and quality of life. Specific themes included preventing falls, walking or locomoting, stair climbing, maintaining activities of daily living, engaging in enjoyable exercise, maintaining independence and human connections, keeping busy, leaving the home for activities, and participating in group activities. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation goals for LTC residents living with dementia often focus on quality of life and functional activities and participation in LTC and family activities and events. Function and quality of life are interrelated, whereby functional goals influence quality of life. While some goals focus on improvement in function, maintenance or prevention of decline were also key elements. Future work should ensure rehabilitation interventions are developed relative to individually identified goals, and interventional success is measured in relation to the goal.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».