The Influence of Supportive Supervisory Practices and Health Care Aides’ Self-Determination on the Provision of Person-Centered Care in Long-Term Care Facilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Person-centred care (PCC) is recognized as best practice in long-term care (LTC). Using a cross-sectional design, we examined the relationship between supportive supervisory practices and health care aides’ (HCAs) self-determination on HCAs’ perceived ability to provide PCC. A total of 131 HCAs from four LTC facilities participated in the study. There were strong, positive associations between HCAs’ self-determination and their perceived ability to provide PCC, r = .59, p < .0001, and how supportive their supervisors were, r = .50, p < .0001. Mediation analysis using structural equation modeling found the direct effect of self-determination on PCC was 73% of its total effect on PCC; its indirect effect mediated through supervisory support was 27% of its total effect on PCC. Improving supportive supervisory relationships that encourage and enable HCAs’ self-determination in LTC settings may be an important and effective means by which to increase the provision of PCC.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it