Changes in health and functioning of care home residents over two decades: what can we learn from population-based studies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Care home residents have complex care and support needs. There is a perception that the needs of residents have increased, but the evidence is limited. We investigated changes in health and functioning of care home residents over two decades in England and Wales. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis over a 24 year period (1992-2016), using data from three longitudinal studies, the Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS) I and II and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). To adjust for ageing of respondents over time results are presented for the 75-84 age group. RESULTS: Analysis of 2,280 observations from 1,745 care home residents demonstrated increases in severe disability (difficulty in at least two from washing, dressing and toileting). The prevalence of severe disability increased from 63% in 1992 to 87% in 2014 (subsequent fall in 2016 although wide confidence intervals). The prevalence of complex multimorbidity (problems in at least three out of six body systems) increased within studies over time, from 33% to 54% in CFAS I/II between 1992 and 2012, and 26% to 54% in ELSA between 2006 and 2016. CONCLUSION: Over two decades, there has been an increase in disability and the complexity of health problems amongst care home residents in England and Wales. A rise in support needs for residents places increasing demands on care home staff and health professionals, and should be an important consideration for policymakers and service commissioners.
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 | 0.029 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".