Effects of a Relationship‐Enhancing Program of Care on Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of a relationship-enhancing program of care (REPC) on resident and care provider outcomes. DESIGN AND METHODS: A quasi-experimental, repeated measures design, with intervention and comparison groups. Questionnaires were distributed to 50 residents, and observations were conducted of 40 residents and 34 nursing staff at baseline and 3 months after the intervention, on two Canadian nursing home units. An investigator-designed educational program based on Winnicott's theory of relationships and the empirical literature, was provided to care providers and their supervisors on the intervention unit. Repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was used to compare the intervention and comparison groups in regard to changes in the outcomes over time. FINDINGS: The REPC had statistically significant effects on (a) residents' perceptions of care providers' relational care, (b) care providers' relational behaviors, and (c) continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence showed that these care providers were taught how to enhance their relational skills with residents living in long-term care facilities without added staff. Recommendations for practice and research are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".