MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614156725 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afx068.140

140Keep On Volunteering: What Motivates Trained Mealtime Volunteers On Acute Medical Wards To Carry On

2017· article· en· W2614156725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S Imarhiagbe, F F A Howson, Emma Giddins, D J Speigal, Helen C. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarry (investment)Physical therapyNursingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many people are involved in voluntary work within health and social care. Trained mealtime volunteers were introduced into Southampton General Hospital in 2011 and now help older people across all Medicine for Older People wards, the Acute Medical Unit, Orthopaedics and adult medical wards. However, mealtime volunteers are a costly investment that needs to be retained. The Volunteer Retention Questionnaire (VRQ) was designed for community-based palliative care volunteers in Canada, to examine their reasons for continuing to volunteer. This study aimed to adapt the VRQ for use with mealtime volunteers in NHS hospital wards, and then use it to examine why volunteers keep on volunteering. The original VRQ contained 33 reasons that may contribute to a decision to keep volunteering. We adapted the language used in the VRQ to British equivalents (e.g. ‘badge’ not ‘pin’) and two reasons specific to community care were removed. Participants rated the importance of the remaining 31 reasons using a 5-point Likert scale. Mean values and standard deviations were obtained for each reason. 24/41 (59%) volunteers participated. 18/24 (75%) participants completed the VRQ fully: missing data mainly reflected volunteers’ lack of personal experience of particular reasons. The highest rated reasons for continuing to volunteer were enjoyment of the role and feeling adequately trained (mean value for both reasons = 4.8, SD = 0.5). The lowest rated reasons were receiving phone calls/cards on special occasions (mean value = 1.6, SD = 1.0) and having the coordinator privately thank them for volunteering (mean value = 1.9, SD = 1.1). The VRQ was successfully adapted for UK volunteers. Despite differences in setting, patients and country, the results are remarkably consistent with the original VRQ. Volunteer coordinators seeking to promote retention should ensure volunteers receive the training required for them to enjoy their role and feel that their contribution is valuable to patients and staff.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicDietetics, Nutrition, and EducationFrench-language works237,207