Factors associated with the responsive behaviours of older adults living in long-term care homes towards staff: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the last decade, increasing research interest has been expressed in responsive behaviours of older adults living in long-term care (LTC) homes, including nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Responsive behaviours are not only a sign of underlying unmet needs, but when directed against (towards) paid staff can lead to decreased quality of work life, and may contribute to lower quality of care. In this systematic review, we aim to synthesise empirically based quantitative and qualitative evidence on factors and stakeholder (eg, staff and family members) experiences of factors associated with the responsive behaviours of people living in LTC directed towards staff. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be a systematic review of published and 'grey' literature. Twelve bibliographical databases will be searched, and for each database, we will use appropriate subject headings and keywords that cover two concepts: LTC and responsive behaviour. No publication date or language filter will be used. The title and abstract of each extracted record will be screened, followed by screening of full text of included papers. Then data extraction and quality assessments will be undertaken. Each stage will be completed independently by pairs of authors. For quantitative studies, meta-analysis will be conducted if pooling is possible; otherwise, a critical narrative analysis will be conducted. For qualitative studies, thematic analysis will be conducted. Factors will then be organised at the individual, interpersonal, institutional and larger societal levels. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to explore the influence of risk of bias and publication bias on the results. Subgroup analysis will be conducted for people who live with dementia and those who do not. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. The results of this study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and presentation at professional conferences.
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 | 0.111 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.011 |
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".