What is the Evidence and Context for Implementing Family-Centered Care for Older Adults?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: This project used the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) knowledge translation framework to better understand the evidence and context for implementing family-centered care for older adults in rural home-based rehabilitative practices. Methods: A case-study design with multiple data collection methods was used to examine rural home-based rehabilitative care for older adults and their caregivers within one provincial healthcare system. Results: The study findings indicated therapists questioned whether their scope of practice should include addressing caregiver needs outside of implementing the therapist's care plan for the client. Therapists also confirmed that multiple contextual levels influence the provision of family-centered care. Conclusions: The PARIHS framework made it easier for the academic and non-academic partners to collaborate; furthermore, the framework identified that the practitioner's clinical experience is an essential component to evaluating and implementing evidence into practice.
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.
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 it