The Perceived Needs and Availability of Eye Care Services for Older Adults in Long-term Care Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective was to evaluate the eye care services offered to older residents living in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). METHODS: A questionnaire targeting residents aged ≥65 years was sent to all LTCFs in Quebec. Questions related to the institution's characteristics, demographic data related to residents, oculovisual health of residents and barriers to eye care, eye care services offered within and outside the institution, and degree of satisfaction regarding the eye care services offered to residents. RESULTS: 196/428 (45.8%) LTCFs completed the questionnaire. Participating LTCFs had an average of 97.0 ± 5.1 residents with a mean age of 82.8 ± 3.0 yrs and 69% women. Eye care services were mostly offered outside the institution, on a "per request" basis. The main barriers to eye care were the perception that residents could not cooperate and the lack of eye care professionals. Most LTCFs were satisfied with the eye care services offered to residents. CONCLUSIONS: The fact that the LTCFs were satisfied with the eye care services offered to their residents, although it was neither provided on a regular basis nor to all residents, suggests that eye care professionals should take a proactive educational role for improving services to older institutionalized adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".