Seniors' narratives of asking (and not asking) for help after a fall: implications for identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Falls among community-dwelling seniors constitute a major public health concern because of the potential morbidity and mortality associated with the fall. This study examined the informal care networks accessed by Canadian seniors who had visited the Emergency Department as a result of a fall, and considered the implications of the processes of asking for and receiving help on the senior's identity. Four themes were identified. The first was valuing independence. The remaining three themes concerned threats to the participants' identities linked to the need to ask for or receive help from family and friends. They were: becoming indebted, feeling devalued and becoming a burden to others. Seniors were noted to excuse family members from the expectation of helping because of work and family commitments, and illness. Participants described a mutually beneficial relationship with friends wherein both parties valued their independence and provided assistance to the other when needed. Their comments suggested that assistance was viewed as a good to be traded among peers. Our findings indicate that seniors value their independence and may not seek help even when it appears to be available, if asking threatens valued identities. Health and social care practitioners and policy makers responsible for planning and delivery of services should take this into account in order to ensure the best possible care for injured community-dwelling seniors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".