Caring to achieve the maximum independence possible: a synthesis of qualitative evidence on older adults’ adaptation to dependency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To understand the process of adaptation to dependency in older adults and their families. BACKGROUND: Dependency and family care giving are attracting the attention of policymakers, service providers and researchers. DESIGN: An interpretative synthesis of qualitative studies has been conducted. METHODS: An extensive search without time and idiom limitations was conducted using the main databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SSCI, LILACS, CUIDEN, Cochrane Library and JBI): personal communication from expert panel was used to detect filters strategies to find qualitative studies; these strategies were combined with search terms for dependence in older adults. The studies (2164 potentially relevant papers) were judged by two reviewers based on reading title, abstract, keywords and/or full text (English, Spanish, French and Portuguese) to determine their inclusion. After, 203 papers were critically appraised by two reviewers (disagreements were resolved by discussions). Finally, the synthesis of the 20 studies with best interpretative character was carried out based on the principles and procedures of Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The findings were related to the process of adaptation to dependency, the factors and the strategies used, the emotions, perceptions and feelings of care givers and older adults. The central category that emerged was 'Caring to achieve the maximum independence possible', and this could be seen as a transition period in which older adults and their families progressed in a mutually determined adaptation process. This category is made up of several redefinitions of concepts, phases, adaptation strategies and final responses to the process. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show the interconnected nature of physical, material, social and emotional aspects of care; and the profound social impact of providing and receiving care. Relevance to clinical practice. The nurses can assist families and older adults to enhance adaptation to dependency, anticipating and helping to redefine the concepts of 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 | 0.119 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".