Seniors' experiences of client-centred residential care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The philosophy concerning long-term care for frail seniors has shifted from a provider-driven, medical model toward a more client-centred, social model. While this philosophy emphasises the decision-making abilities of clients and respect for their values and preferences, evidence suggests that there are difficulties in understanding and implementing the philosophy. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with residents of adult family living and assisted living programmes in western Canada to better understand the elements that residents themselves felt were integral to client-centred care. Three main themes emerged from the data analysis: (1) the physical setting, people within the setting, and the community were important areas of expression of residents' values and preferences; (2) the decision about where to live influenced whether the residential care environment was congruent with residents' values and preferences; (3) contentment resulted when there was a good fit between preferences and experiences, reflecting the essence of residents' perspective of client-centred care. Choices among models of care, appropriate staffing levels and training, and recognition of family contributions may improve the practice of client-centred care.
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 | 0.000 | 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".