Influence of Individual and Contextual Characteristics on the Provision of Individualized Care in Long-Term Care Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous research examining improved provision of individualized care (I-Care) in long-term care (LTC) facilities has primarily considered contextual influences. Using Kanter's theory of structural empowerment, this study explored the relationship among contextual-level characteristics, individual-level characteristics, and access to empowerment structures on LTC staffs' perceived ability to provide I-Care. METHODS: Multilevel models were used to examine 567 staffs' (registered nurse [RN], licensed practical nurses [LPN], care aides) reported ability to provide I-Care, nested within 41 LTC facilities. I-Care was first modeled as a function of within-person (e.g., age, job classification, experience) and between-context (e.g., facility ownership status, culture change models) variables. Independent of these predictors, we then assessed the influence of staffs' access to empowerment structures (information, support, opportunities, resources, informal power, and formal power) on reported ability to provide I-Care. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient indicated that 91.7% of the total variance in perceived ability to provide I-Care reflected within- versus between-person differences, with the 6 empowerment variables accounting for 31% of this within-person variance independent of the other context- and person-level covariates. In the final model, only informal power (i.e., quality of interprofessional relationships) and resources (i.e., adequate time and supplies) uniquely predicted I-Care. Notably, access to resources also attenuated the significant effect of support, suggesting a possible mediating effect. IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that both contextual- and individual-level factors exert considerably less influence on I-Care than factors associated to staffs' perceptions of empowerment. Consequently, interventions aimed at increasing I-Care in LTC settings should carefully consider staffs' access to structural empowerment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".