Supporting and promoting personhood in long term care settings: contextual factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for personhood-focused long-term care (LTC) is well-documented. A myriad of sociocultural, political, nursing/professional and organisational contexts facilitate or hinder registered nurses (RNs)' capacity to ensure personhood-focused LTC. Complexities derive from the countless interrelated aspects of these contexts, blurring clear distinctions of causality, responsibility and accountability. Context-related complexities were highlighted at a recent international conference attended by invited experts in LTC leadership from six countries (Canada, USA, England, Northern Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden). The group was convened to explore the value and contributions of RNs in LTC (McGilton, , International Journal of Older People Nursing 7, 282). The purpose of this paper is to expand the discussion of personhood-focused care beyond RNs, to contexts that influence the RN's capacity to ensure personhood-focused practices are embedded in LTC settings. Consistent with key topics covered at the international conference, we selected four major contexts for discussion in this paper: (i) sociocultural, (ii) public policy/financing/regulation, (iii) nursing/professional and (iv) organisational. For each context, we provide a brief description, literature and examples from a few countries attending the conference, potential impact on personhood-focused practices and RN strategies to facilitate personhood-focused care. The knowledge gained from attending to the influence of contextual factors on the RN's role in facilitating personhood-focused practices provides critical insights and directions for interventions aimed to maximise RN role effectiveness in LTC. In practice, understanding linkages between the various contexts offers indispensable insight for LTC nurse leaders charged with managing day-to-day operations and leading quality improvement initiatives that promote personhood-focused practices.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".