Perspective of Family Members of Transitions to Alternative Levels of Care in Anglo-Saxon Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review explores circumstances surrounding the decision about, and eventual experience of, transitioning older adults into alternative levels of housing (ALH), such as long-term care. This topic is examined from a family member perspective, given their exposure and involvement in the care of older adult relatives during this transitional period. The scoping review methodology is based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and subsequent recommendations from Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien. Approximately 470 articles were reviewed covering the period between 2000 and November 2014; 37 articles met inclusion criteria. A temporal organization of themes was used to describe the experiences of family members in the pretransition, active transition, and posttransition periods of moving older adult relatives into ALH. This paper highlights the transitional period as a time of crisis, with a lack of planning, support, and transparent discussion. This study identifies a need for future research on the potential benefits of family support groups, interim transitional housing options, different models of ALH, changing roles in the posttransition period, and the need for a comprehensive list of housing options for older adults. Results have the potential to inform policy/practice and improve the lives of older adults and their family.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".