Family Caregivers and Transition to Long-Term Care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study's purpose was to explore family caregivers' experiences while they waited placement of family members with dementia in long-term care and how they coped during this period of waiting and transition. In this exploratory descriptive qualitative study, interviews were conducted with 29 caregivers at entry to the placement wait-list and at 3 to 4-month intervals thereafter. Final interviews, with 15 caregivers, were conducted shortly after admission to long-term care. When "the waiting begins," the themes of crisis as initiator, synchronicity, control, and reciprocity emerged. "After placement" included the themes of deeply bonded relationships, attempting continuity, and sorting out the change. The findings provide new insight into family caregiver experiences during and after placement of a family member with dementia in long-term care. Clinicians must recognize that wherever services are provided, at home before placement or in institutions after placement, family caregivers must be incorporated as full partners in 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it