Nurses’ provisions for self-determination when caring for clients with cognitive impairment who live in a residential aged care facility: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to examine and map knowledge of nursing provisions for self-determination while providing care to clients with cognitive impairment in residential aged care facilities. INTRODUCTION: Maintaining the ability to have choices and to make decisions about daily activities is important for older adults. In residential aged care facilities, nurses' can be challenged to preserve clients' self-determination in favor of ritualistic care routines and a perceived duty to care. Moreover, nurses may perceive that their professional responsibilities to protect clients requires them to guard against decisions that are considered unwise or pose a risk to clients' health or safety. Insight into how nurses negotiate choice with clients with cognitive impairment who are living in a residential care facility will provide an in-depth understanding of the role self-determination plays in clients' lives. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The scoping review will consider research and narrative reports on nursing provisions for self-determination in clients with cognitive impairment who are living in a residential aged care facility. The concepts of interest are self-determination and nursing provisions. Self-determination is defined as client choice and nursing provisions are the intentional reactions to clients' expressed choices. METHODS: This scoping review will aim to locate published and unpublished literature employing a three-step search strategy. Only papers published in English from 1995 onward will be included. Data extracted from included papers will outline details on the participants, context, strategy, activity, and outcomes. Extracted data will be reported in a tabular form and presented narratively to address the review objective.
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 | 0.086 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
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".