The development and validation of instruments to measure dignity‐protective continence care for care‐dependent older people in residential aged care facilities: A study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To develop and validate two instruments to measure dignity-protective continence care for care-dependent older people in residential aged care facilities: one instrument to be completed by care recipients and another for healthcare professionals. METHODS: The first phase of the project will involve a review of literature to identify the attributes of "dignity-protective continence care" for older people, which will be used to design the initial drafts of the instruments. Thereafter the Delphi survey technique will be used to establish the face and content validity of the draft instruments with three purposive samples; (a) care recipients (care-dependent older people with decisional capacity), (b) formal carers (nurses and personal care workers from residential aged care facilities, and (c) healthcare professionals with gerontological expertize in the management of incontinence. After instrument development, a large cross-sectional survey of care recipients and formal carers will be conducted to establish the internal consistency and construct validity of the instruments. This will be followed by a series of tests to establish their test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: The completed research will result in two reliable and valid instruments that will support broader efforts to ensure that care practices in residential aged care facilities do not violate the dignity of care-dependent older people with continence care needs, and allow care partners and providers to act upon the results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".