“It Doesn't Require Much Effort Once You Get to Know Them”: Certified Nursing Assistants' Views of Communication in Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certified nursing assistants (CNAs) provide the majority of hands-on care and become highly sensitive to residents' communication behaviors. Yet, CNAs feel disempowered when communicating residents' concerns to higher levels of authority. A grounded theory approach using focus group interviews with 23 CNAs was used to describe the communication environment in long-term care (LTC) and explore CNAs' perceptions of the acceptability of communication plans, a recent Canadian intervention to facilitate resident-staff communication. Findings suggest the communication environment in LTC relates to three overlapping constructs: (a) CNA and resident communication style; (b) paradox of context; and (c) dedication to residents. Although CNAs frequently interact with residents, a division between "top and bottom staff" communication was apparent in the findings. The current study suggested that communication plans may improve the communication environment in LTC settings. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 42(4), 42-51.].
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".