How Does the Geriatric Day Hospital Program at Bruyère Continuing Care Influence Functional Independence Outcomes in its Patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programs that address the needs of the elderly are especially important in Canada today as it experiences population aging. There are currently no pretest-posttest studies evaluating functional independence of patients attending the Geriatric Day Hospital at Bruyère Continuing Care in Ottawa, Ontario using the set of indicators and outcome measurement instruments in this study. Evaluation of older patients (age over 65) in this program using various outcome measures was carried out using a single group pretest-post test design. Results showed that there was statistically significant improvement between pretest and post-test scores measuring fear of falling, balance, and functional exercise capacity. However, no significant difference was found between pre- and post-scores for caregiver stress, for which various hypothesized reasons are proposed. There were similar findings for the subgroups analyzed (patients with a history of: stroke or TIA; previous falls; or osteoarthritis) with the exception of fear of falling, which did not show a significant decrease in the stroke subgroup. Some caregivers suggested that “burden” was not an appropriate word for describing their experience, as care-giving was often seen as a moral obligation or an act of love. Future evaluation research using a mixed methods approach and repeated measures design is recommended for a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of this Day Hospital. It may also be of value to compare the different geriatric day hospital programs at the local and regional levels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".