IDENTIFYING BEST-PRACTICE STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING RESIDENTIAL CAREGIVERS WORKING WITH CHILDREN AT RISK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residential caregivers are the central figures responsible for the children in their charge. Their work is physically and emotionally taxing, and carried out under pressure: they are prone to burnout. In addition, their status is lower than that of other staff. This study aimed to identify the strategies to improve caregiver functioning that have been adopted in Israel’s residential social-service facilities, and to examine the extent of their implementation. A two-stage, mixed-methods study design was employed. In the qualitative stage, six successful care facilities were identified; their directors were interviewed in depth using the Learning from Success method. In the quantitative stage, a survey was administered to 95 directors, using open and closed questions. Six best-practice strategies for working with caregivers were identified: careful screening, training, ongoing supervision, personal and professional support mechanisms, flexible schedules, and a clear work plan and procedures. While these strategies were applied to some extent in most facilities, they varied in scope and implementation. Using a regression model, we found a connection between the implementation of these strategies and the directors’ satisfaction with the caregivers’ work. We discuss recommendations that can help directors incorporate the six strategies in residential homes and meet the challenges directors face in their work with caregivers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".