Participation at Care Home Admission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Moving into a care home is a difficult undertaking, and frail older people need support if they are to participate in decisions related to the moving process.Aim The aim of the present study on moving into a care home was to describe recently admitted older people's stated reasons for moving, as well as their experiences of participation in preparations and decisions. Furthermore, the aim was to study relatives' and home care managers ‘perceptions concerning the move and their own part in the moving process.Methods Interviews were carried out with 13 older people who had moved into a care home, their relatives (n=10) and home care managers (n=10).Findings The most frequently reported reasons for moving were insecurity and physical problems. Some older people and relatives felt the information was insufficient and three older people felt ‘left out’ with respect to their participation in the decision to move, but their home care managers were certain that they had participated.Conclusions Satisfaction with admission was related to the older person's experience of participation in decision-making and achieving a feeling of power and control. The duty of home care managers and nurses is to encourage older people to participate actively in the moving process and to give them rich information.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".