The dining experience of residents with dementia in long-term care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study aimed to explore the dining experience of residents with dementia in long-term care facilities, with a focus on the psychosocial aspect of their experiences. Data were collected by multiple methods, including participant observation and conversational interviews with residents with dementia, focus groups with staff, and examination of documents at two urban facilities in British Columbia, Canada. Data analysis revealed eight themes: (1) Outpacing/ Relaxed pace, (2) Withholding/ Holding, (3) Stimulation, (4) Disrespect/ Respect, (5) Invalidation/ Validation, (6) Distancing/ Connecting, (7) Disempowerment/ Empowerment, and (8) Ignoring/ Inclusion. These themes provide a clear set of factors that affect the quality of residents' experiences and offer insights into the processes of how multiple factors influence the residents' experiences in complex ways. The results suggest that although staff approaches significantly impact residents' experiences, the physical environment and organizational milieu are also responsible for hindering and facilitating staff to provide care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".