MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762003305 · doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2571-y

Factors affecting residents transition from long term care facilities to the community: a scoping review

2017· review· en· W2762003305 on OpenAlexafffund
Shannon Freeman, Kristen Bishop, Lina Spirgienė, Erica Koopmans, Fernanda Botelho, Trina Fyfe, Beibei Xiong, Stacey Patchett, Martha MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNursing researchHealth informaticsHealth administrationMedicineTerm (time)Public healthLong-term careHealth services researchNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are often places where persons with complex health needs that cannot be met in a community setting, reside and are cared for until death. However, not all persons experience continuous declines in health and functioning. For some residents who experience improvement in personal abilities and increased independence, transition from the LTCF to the community may be an option. This scoping review aimed to synthetize the existing evidence regarding the transition process from discharge planning to intervention and evaluation of outcomes for residents transitioning from LTCFs to the community. METHODS: This review followed a five-stage scoping review framework to describe the current knowledge base related to transition from LTCFs to community based private dwellings as the location of the discharge (example: Person's own home or shared private home with a family member, friend, or neighbour). Of the 4221 articles retrieved in the search of 6 databases, 36 articles met the criteria for inclusion in this review. RESULTS: The majority of studies focussed on an older adult population (aged 65 years or greater), were conducted in the USA, and were limited to small geographic regions. There was a lack of consistency in terminology used to describe both the facilities as well as the transition process. Literature consisted of a broad array of study designs; sample sizes ranged from less than 10 to more than 500,000. Persons who were younger, married, female, received intense therapy, and who expressed a desire to transition to a community setting were more likely to transition out of a LTCF while those who exhibited cognitive impairment were less likely to transition out of a LTCF to the community. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the heterogeneity and paucity of research examining transition of persons from LTCFs to the community. Overall, it remains unclear what best practices support the discharge planning and transition process and whether or not discharge from a LTCF to the community promotes the health, wellbeing, and quality of life of the persons. More research is needed in this area before we can start to confidently answer the research questions.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.463
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207