Exploring person-centered care and mealtimes for residents with dementia in specialized care units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored the dining experience of residents with dementia living in specialized care units, with a focus on person-centered care aspects in staff practices. Data were collected by multiple methods: participant observation, informal and formal interviews with care staff, and examination of relevant documents at a long term care facility in British Columbia, Canada. Data analysis revealed five person-centered categories in relation to dining: (1) Relaxed Pace/ Outpacing, (2) Respect/ Disrespect, (3) Connecting/ Distancing, (4) Empowerment/ Disempowerment, and (5) Inclusion/ Ignoring. Analysis also identified the ways in which staff understood person-centered care, and factors affecting its delivery. These categories provide insight into the psychosocial and physical environmental factors that affect residents’ dining experience. The findings suggest that while staff practices reflect several aspects of person-centered care, a biomedical undercurrent continues to hinder the evolution of dementia care.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".