Symbolic meaning of relocation to a residential care facility for persons with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study explored the perspectives of persons with dementia (PWD) on the meanings and experiences associated with relocation to a residential care facility (RCF). METHODS: A qualitative design was employed, which involved in-depth interviews with 16 PWD at their homes within two months prior to relocation. The work of Strauss and Corbin guided the analysis process. RESULTS: Participants viewed relocation to an RCF as a major residential change and life transition requiring significant adaptive efforts. The experience clearly had a profound personal meaning for the participating PWD, shaped by their unique personal identities, psycho-environmental histories and current living circumstances. However, despite individual variations, four major themes captured the common perspectives and experiences in the sample. Relocation to an RCF: (a) symbolized the end of an era and a long-established way of life; (b) signaled the inevitable downward trajectory of old age; (c) meant living a more protected, dependent, structured and communal lifestyle in a place that is associated with 'hospitality' and 'rest'; and (d) presented a life course challenge that could be dealt with by drawing on one's sense of identity as a 'survivor'. CONCLUSION: The findings raise awareness of the subjective meanings of residential transitions in the experience of aging with dementia, and inform supportive interventions to optimize housing decisions for PWD in order to promote successful adaptation to their new living environments.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".