Changes in physical functioning in institutionalized older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chronic care and long-term care facilities have a responsibility to provide care that enables residents to attain or maintain their maximal functional capacity. This paper uses the Minimum Data Set (MDS) to examine changes in functional health. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-eight residents were assessed quarterly using the MDS over a 12 month period in a chronic care and long-term care institution. Physical functioning was conceptualized in two areas of physical limitations (e.g. bed mobility) and disability (e.g. dressing). RESULTS: Ten percent of the residents physical functioning improved. Gender, range of motion score at baseline, change in bed mobility and change in short term memory were strong independent predictors of changes in functional activity FL adjusted R2 = 0.23, F(5156) = 10.47, p<0.0001. The strongest independent predictors of change in ADL were gender, balance while standing at baseline, joint range of motion at baseline and change in depression scores, and weight loss, adjusted R2 = 0.24 , F(4157)= 13.38, p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Most residents' physical functioning showed a deterioration or remained stable. Impairments which best explained changes in functioning such as range of motion or balance in standing are modifiable and should be targeted in interventions by nursing and rehabilitation staff.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".