INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT ON NURSING HOME RESIDENTS’ SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unregulated care providers (health care aides) provide the majority of hands-on care to nursing home residents. The work environment (organizational context) of these direct care providers is increasingly recognized as having an effect on resident outcomes (e.g., pressure ulcers, pain, social engagement). Social engagement is a crucial component of resident health as lower levels are associated with increased risk of depression and mortality. The purpose of this presentation is to examine how individual resident factors and modifiable elements of the organizational context (e.g. leadership, culture) influence the social engagement of residents. We used data collected in 91 Western Canadian nursing homes in the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program of research: 4,056 health care aide surveys and 87,423 Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS 2.0) records. Health care aide surveys provide information on staff demographics and organizational context. RAI data is routinely collected in the nursing homes and collects information such as resident characteristics, health conditions, and medications, to assist in care planning and monitoring quality of care. Using mixed-models we assessed the effect of resident, staff, and facility factors on residents’ social engagement. We found that residents’ cognitive impairment and sensory impairment were associated with reduced social engagement. Quality of organizational context and quality of staff work life were positively related to resident social engagement. Organizational context in nursing homes is modifiable. Understanding the effect of organizational context on resident social engagement helps to identify tangible features of nursing homes to improve resident health and quality of life.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".