MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929605579 · doi:10.28933/ijoar-2019-03-1005

Nutrition Care for Residents with Dementia in Long-Term Care Homes: Umbrella Review of Care Aide and Registered Dietitian Services

2019· article· en· W2929605579 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Debra Morgan and Susan J Whiting Allison Cammer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Aging Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer Society
KeywordsDementiaStaffingLong-term careMedicineNursingGerontologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent attention has highlighted the distinct food and nutrition needs of residents with dementia living in long-term care (nursing homes). Nutrition care involves assessment of nutritional need, along with providing safe and appropriate food that fulfills nutritional requirements. Within long-term care, much of the direct care responsibilities lies with care aides who provide the day-to-day assistance including at mealtimes; however, it is the registered dietitian (RD) who provides specialized nutrition care. We sought to examine how roles and responsibilities of care aides and dietitians were described in long-term care settings. As many systematic reviews addressing nutrition care in dementia have appeared in the past two decades, we examined these using an Umbrella Review protocol. Ten papers were retrieved which examined nutrition services for dementia residents. These were diverse in nature. While all addressed some aspect of nutrition and the need for appropriate staffing, only three noted and discussed care aides and only three either noted or made recommendations for involvement of dietitians. Thus, the lack of attention to RDs and care aides represents a true gap that must be addressed in order for recommendations to enhance nutrition care for residents with dementia to be effective. Funding statement: This work was supported by scholarship awards to A.C. from Alzheimer Society of Canada Quality of Life Doctoral Fellowship, a Public Health and the Rural Agricultural Ecosystem (PHARE) graduate trainee fellowship, CIHR-STIHR, University of Saskatchewan.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.402 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Aging ResearchSame topicDietetics, Nutrition, and EducationFrench-language works237,207