A Complex Intervention to Strengthen Person-Centered Care and Leadership in Residential Care Facilities (the PERLE Study): Protocol for a Development and Implementation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of person-centered care (PCC) are widely recognized, there is a lack of empirical research on how PCC is best developed and implemented by the leaders responsible for driving such initiatives. To achieve meaningful change and ensure the sustainability of PCC practices, it is crucial to understand how leaders can foster care environments rooted in person-centered values while managing operational challenges. This knowledge gap highlights the need for an in-depth exploration of the conceptual foundations, experiences, mechanisms, strategies, and outcomes of person-centered leadership (PCL) to design an intervention for strengthening such leadership. OBJECTIVE: The Person-Centered Care and Leadership in Residential Care Facilities (PERLE) study aims to (1) explore and develop tools to measure PCL; (2) develop, test, implement, and investigate the effects of an intervention to strengthen PCL in residential care facilities (RCFs) for older people; and (3) generate knowledge about the process of development and implementation of the intervention. METHODS: The PERLE study builds on the Medical Research Council framework for the development of complex interventions. It includes several studies with exploratory, descriptive, correlational, and quasi-experimental designs and is based on the research group's previous research on PCL. The project is composed of 5 work packages (WPs). Each WP includes research questions with different samples; data collection; and methodological approaches, such as qualitative, mixed methods, and quantitative studies. As this project involves sensitive issues, a high level of ethical awareness was maintained throughout. The primary challenge is the possible interference with participants' work time, which could otherwise be devoted to supporting older people and staff. Nevertheless, the involvement of leaders and staff can lead to valuable knowledge that can improve the quality of PCC. Participants will be provided with both oral and written information about the study and assured of their right to withdraw at any time without providing a reason. RESULTS: As of July 2025, 6 studies in WP I have been conducted, and one is in progress. The conducted studies address leaders' understanding of PCC, the meaning of PCL in RCFs from the perspective of leaders, the ethical challenges in providing PCC during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the cultural adaptation of the aged care clinical leadership qualities framework. CONCLUSIONS: This project aims to provide new insights into the support that first-line managers need to advance PCC in RCFs, highlight their specific challenges, and create tailored support measures for the implementation of PCL. The intervention could potentially reduce staff turnover and related costs while supporting leadership training and education to benefit future leaders in aged care, which may be important from an international perspective. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/76185.
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 | 0,068 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,064 | 0,016 |
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 ».