Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family relationships are a significant part of a person’s life. Unfortunately, moving a relative from a family home into a long-term care (LTC) home requires the readjustment of family relationships from a familiar to a foreign environment and puts these relationships and associated family identity at risk. With the shift in focus to person-centred care and its need for the maintenance of family connection, the fostering of family relationships in LTC homes becomes an important part of properly enacting this approach to care. This critical ethnography explored the ways in which family relationships are fostered in LTC and identified the efforts made and barriers that exist in the broader organizational and social context of LTC that influence how these relationships are fostered. Data from a larger critical ethnography was collected through semi-structured interviews with and participant observation of 12 family members, seven staff members, and three residents from a LTC home in an urban city in British Columbia, Canada. Family members came into the LTC home to spend time with their relative and maintain a connection with them, but a lack of opportunity to take part in activities that recognized the importance of these connections prevented family relationships from being fostered. Task-focused care overlooked the importance of relational care and further prevented family relationships from being maintained. Physical and cognitive decline also made it difficult for family members to engage and connect with their relative, resulting in a significant impact on the fostering of family relationships. Driving distances and a lack of opportunity to maintain connections with relatives outside of the LTC home added to the challenge of fostering family relationships. Family members want to maintain family identities and associated relationships but require support in doing so. The findings from this study have implications for nursing practice, administration, education, and research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".