Interventions for Improving Mealtime Experiences in Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor food intake in residents living in long-term care (LTC) homes is a common problem. The mealtime experience is known to be important in the multifactorial causes of food intake. Diverse interventions have been developed, implemented, and/or evaluated to improve the mealtime experience in LTC; it is possible that multicomponent interventions will have a greater benefit than single activities. To identify the range of feasible and potentially useful interventions for including in a multicomponent intervention, this scoping review identified and summarized 58 studies that described and/or evaluated mealtime experience interventions. There were several randomized controlled trials, although most studies used less rigorous methods. Interventions that are multicomponent (e.g., food service, dining environment, staff education) and target multilevel factors (e.g., residents, staff) in LTC appear to be feasible, with a variety of outcomes measured. Further research is still needed with more rigorously designed studies, confirming effectiveness, feasible implementation, and scaling up of efficacious interventions.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".