"I really should've gone to the doctor": older adults and family caregivers describe their experiences with community-acquired pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Responding to acute illness symptoms can often be challenging for older adults. The primary objective of this study was to describe how community-dwelling older adults and their family members responded to symptoms of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: A qualitative study that used face-to-face semi-structured interviews to collect data from a purposeful sample of seniors aged 60+ and their family members living in a mid-sized Canadian city. Data analysis began with descriptive and interpretive coding, then advanced as the research team repeatedly compared emerging thematic categories to the raw data. Searches for disconfirming evidence and member checking through focus groups provided additional data and helped ensure rigour. RESULTS: Community-acquired pneumonia symptoms varied greatly among older adults, making decisions to seek care difficult for them and their family members. Both groups took varying amounts of time as they attempted to sort out what was wrong and then determine how best to respond. Even after they concluded something was wrong, older adults with confirmed pneumonia continued to wait for days, to over a week, before seeking medical care. Participants provided diverse reasons for this delay, including fear, social obligations (work, family, leisure), and accessibility barriers (time, place, systemic). Several older adults and family members regretted their delays in seeking help. CONCLUSION: Treatment-seeking delay is a variable, multi-phased decision-making process that incorporates symptom assessment plus psychosocial and situational factors. Public health and health care professionals need to educate older adults about the potential causes and consequences of unnecessary waits. Such efforts may reduce the severity of community-acquired pneumonia upon presentation at clinics and hospitals, and that, in turn, could potentially improve health outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".