The relationship between care providers’ relational behaviors and residents mood and behavior in long-term care settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Care providers' interactions with residents are an important element in long-term care settings. This study aimed at examining the association between care providers' relational behaviors and affect and mood of residents with dementia over different caregiving situations and with different residents. METHODS: This study utilized a repeated-measures design. Thirty-eight residents with a diagnosis of dementia and 35 care providers from three nursing homes in Ontario, Canada, participated in the study. Care providers' relational behaviors and residents' mood and affect were assessed using direct observation methods and self-rating scales. RESULTS: The care providers' relational behavior varied according to the caregiving situation, with the most effective relational behaviors observed during interpersonal interactions and the least effective during mealtimes. Less effective relational behaviors were observed between care providers and residents that were perceived as more resistive to care. In addition, effective relational behaviors were associated with positive mood and affect of the residents. CONCLUSION: These findings emphasize the importance of acknowledging and enhancing care providers' relational behaviors when caring for persons with dementia living in long-term care settings.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".