MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Family and Staff Perceptions of the Impact of the Long-term Care Environment on Leisure

2006· article· en· W2316499997 on OpenAlexaff
Kristen C. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Geriatric Rehabilitation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionMedicineTerm (time)Leisure timeGerontologyNursingPsychologyPhysical activityPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease is a debilitating disease affecting the brain, including emotions, judgment, information processing, memory, and the ability to learn. As the disease progresses, simple activities of daily living become more and more difficult. Alzheimer's disease is one of the most common reasons for institutionalization among older adults. The transition from a home to a long-term care facility has the potential to decrease functioning ability; however, leisure activities are an aspect of resident care that is used to promote an enhanced quality of life. The purpose of this study was to investigate how the institutional environment impacts leisure opportunities and choices of individuals with Alzheimer's disease in a long-term care facility, from the perspectives of staff members and family caregivers. Self-contained focus groups were utilized for this study. This type of focus group provides very rich data that can be useful without reliance on other methods. This study used a semistructured approach for conducting focus groups and the interview guides contained broad questions that attempted to elicit information about the impacts of the environment on leisure. The questions focused on physical, social, and psychological influences in the environment that impacted on leisure involvement. Thirteen individuals who met the predetermined criteria were contacted to participate in the research study. Ten individuals participated in the study: 5 family caregivers and 5 staff members. The following themes represented the issues that were relevant to leisure involvement from the perspective of the family members: Lack of staff, family involvement, concerns for well-being of loved one, physical environment, and opportunity for leisure was limited. The following themes represented the staff members' voices from this study: Staff-related issues, environmental issues, discrimination of individuals with Alzheimer's disease, and lack of family support and education. The findings in this study were examined from an ecological perspective in which the long-term care environment was categorized into the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. Most of the findings related to the microsystem and mesosystem, or the immediate environment, which can be somewhat controlled by the participants. Although there were learnings at other layers, such as the macrosystem and exosystem, individuals in this study had little control over these layers of the environment, but collectively they may be able to initiate wider changes. The learnings that emerged from this study could potentially improve the long-term care environment, which addressed some of the issues identified by the participants. Increasing communication through the collaboration of staff members and family caregivers at the facility was an important learning that addressed some of the issues identified by participants. Family caregivers voiced concerns about the staff members not being knowledgeable about their loved one's past, or taking time to find out what the individual was interested in. Communication among all parties involved will be very beneficial to aid in enhancing the microsystem, where most of the issues developed, to make the environment more conducive to leisure. The therapeutic recreation professional should provide leisure education to staff and family members, as well as provide tools and resources to both family and staff members to assist in enhancing involvement in leisure in residents with Alzheimer's disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Geriatric RehabilitationSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207