Screening for mental disorders in residential aged care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The International Psychogeriatric Association Task Force on Mental Health Services in Long-Term Care Facilities seeks to improve care of persons in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). As part of that effort the current authors have contributed an overview and discussion of the uses of brief screening instruments in RACFs. METHODS: While no current guidelines on the use of screening instruments in nursing homes were found, relevant extant guidelines were consulted. The literature on measurement development, testing standards, psychometric considerations and the nursing home environment were consulted. RESULTS: Cognitive, psychiatric, behavioral, functional and omnibus screening instruments are described at a category level, along with specifics about their use in a RACF environment. Issues surrounding the selection, administration, interpretation and uses of screening instruments in RACFs are discussed. Issues of international interest (such as translation of measures) or clinical concern (e.g. impact of severe cognitive decline on assessment) are addressed. Practical points surrounding who can administer, score and interpret such screens, as well as their psychometric and clinical strengths more broadly, are articulated. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for use of screening instruments in the RACF environment are offered, together with broad recommendations concerning the appropriate use of brief screening instruments in RACFs. Directions for future research and policy directions are outlined, with particular reference to the international context.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".