Nursing home residents’ perspectives on their social relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore nursing home residents' perspectives on their relationships with other residents, family members and staff. BACKGROUND: The cultivation of social relationships is central to promoting well-being in nursing homes, as these relationships allow residents, family members and staff to be valued as unique persons and empowered as partners in care. Few studies have examined how nursing home residents perceive the relationships in their social networks, both within and beyond the facility. DESIGN: Qualitative secondary analysis. METHODS: We analysed individual and group interviews obtained during "stakeholder engagement sessions" with cognitively intact residents (N = 11 sessions; N = 13 participants) from two nursing homes in North Carolina. The interviews were conducted as part of a larger study on person-directed care planning. We integrated thematic and narrative analytic approaches to guide the analysis of interview data, using a three-cycle coding approach. The COREQ checklist was followed. RESULTS: Four broad themes emerged from this analysis: (a) peer relationships foster a sense of belonging, purpose, achievement and significance; (b) residents' relationships with family members support a sense of belonging, continuity and significance; (c) mutual respect and reciprocity between residents and nursing home staff promote a sense of belonging and significance; and (d) organisational factors pose barriers to forging meaningful relationships. Each type of relationship-peer, family and staff-made distinctive contributions residents' psychosocial well-being. CONCLUSION: Recognising the diverse roles of different actors from residents' social networks raises questions for future research to optimise the distinctive contributions of network members that promote residents' psychosocial well-being. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study highlights the need for nursing home staff to understand how residents' social relationships influence residents' psychosocial outcomes. Staff training programmes are needed to support residents' rights and to dispel inaccurate interpretations of regulations that threaten sustained meaningful relationships.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".