National study on acceptance by Japanese nursing homes of patients with feeding tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study describes the acceptance of patients with feeding tubes in nursing homes for the elderly. METHODS: We sent questionnaires to 1,438 nursing homes in 2006-7 asking how many patients with feeding tubes the nursing homes had and how many new patients with feeding tubes they would accept in the future. RESULTS: The response rate was 63.6%. We analyzed the data of 735 nursing homes. The median range (25-75%) of the number of patients, patients accepted, and total number of patients currently resident was determined. The percentage of tube feedings to total beds in those categories was 8.0% (range 4.0-13.3), 5.0% (0-10.0), and 13.3% (8.0-23.8), respectively. Whereas 6% of the nursing homes had no limits on acceptance of patients with feeding tubes, 27.2% of the nursing homes replied that they would no longer accept such patients. Factors associated with restricted acceptance included nurse responses (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.95), a facility with over 100 beds (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.10-4.17), and no current patients with feeding tubes (OR 4.19, 95% CI 2.36-7.43). CONCLUSION: One quarter of nursing homes for the elderly in Japan replied that they would no longer accept patients with feeding tubes. More nurses than other professionals replied that they would accept patients with feeding tubes. Larger nursing homes were less likely to accept tube-feeing patients. Furthermore, nursing homes with no tube-feeding patients were unwilling to accept such patients.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".