Impact of caregivers’ behaviors on resistiveness to care and collaboration in persons with dementia in the context of hygienic care: an interactional perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role played by various physical and verbal behaviors of professional caregivers in the onset of resistiveness to care (RTC) and collaborative behaviors of nursing home residents with dementia was assessed in a daily hygienic care routine context. METHODS: Two hundred and forty hygienic care routines, observed in eight nursing home residents, were analyzed with a video-assisted systematic observation methodology and a sequential statistical analysis strategy. RESULTS: Caregiver and care recipient behaviors are interdependent in the hygienic care routine context. Physical instrumental behavior, neutral, negative and positive statements, positive and negative instructions, and verbal distraction emitted by caregivers are significantly and moderately associated with the onset of RTC in persons with dementia (PWD), but the strength of relationships observed depends on the care recipient's behavior prior to the caregiver's action. Positive instructions are moderately associated with the onset of collaboration in residents with preserved language abilities. However, for residents with severe language impairment, these same instructions were linked to RTC behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Although antecedents to RTC can be identified, the risk that caregiver behaviors trigger resistive responses is higher when care recipients are already exhibiting RTC, and is low when no particular behavior or collaboration is shown. Antecedents to collaboration are also identified and discussed. Although different caregiver behaviors may be more or less likely to elicit resistiveness or collaboration, it is the pre-existing state of the care recipient that will determine its reaction to the caregiver's behavior. Clinical implications emerging from these influential findings are elaborated.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".