MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2240040005 · doi:10.1177/1054773815601392

Strategies Used by Older Patients to Prevent Functional Decline During Hospitalization

2015· article· en· W2240040005 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie A Lafrenière, Nathalie Folch, Sylvie Dubois, Lucie Bédard, Francine Ducharme

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nursing Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionAutonomyMedicineNursing Interventions ClassificationGerontological nursingNursingOlder peopleQualitative researchAcute careGerontologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost one third of older patients hospitalized for acute care suffer functional decline. Few studies have investigated the point of view of older patients on prevention of this decline. Within the framework of a descriptive qualitative study, the perceptions of 30 hospitalized older adults were collected regarding their personal prevention strategies, the barriers to implementing these, and nursing staff interventions deemed useful. Results show that participants are sensitive to the risk of functional decline and utilize various preventive strategies particularly to maintain their physical abilities, maintain good spirits, keep a clear mind, and foster nutrition and sleep. Their strategies are difficult to implement on account of internal and external barriers. Nursing interventions deemed useful are good relational approach, strong basic care, appropriate assessment, and respect for level of autonomy. The study underscores that older hospitalized patients are applying strategies to prevent functional decline, but some nursing interventions may thwart their efforts.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Nursing ResearchSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207