Staff Reports of Behavioral Expressions of Persons With Dementia in 250 Assisted Living Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Assisted living (AL) residents with dementia commonly exhibit behavioral expressions (BEs), yet no study has examined how AL staff perceive and respond to BEs in terms of the "ABC" model of antecedents, behaviors, and consequences, or how perceptions relate to organizational characteristics. Understanding staff perceptions may inform interventions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A convergent, mixed methods design was used in a study of health care supervisors from 250 AL communities in 7 states who reported 366 cases of resident BEs (one successful and one unsuccessful case). Qualitative analysis identified antecedents, BEs, staff responses, resident outcomes, and disposition (aging in place or discharge). Content analysis identified themes and compared case types. Descriptive statistics examined organizational characteristics associated with identifying antecedents. RESULTS: One quarter of cases recognized antecedents; slightly more were identified in successful (28%) compared to unsuccessful cases (20%); staff in dementia-only and smaller communities identified antecedents more often. Combativeness and anxiety were the most frequently reported BEs. The majority of both types of cases reported staff responses. Medication management was enacted as a response in 40% of cases compared to psychiatric assessment in 33% of cases. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Staff training is indicated to increase AL staff recognition of antecedents; doing so might reduce the use of antipsychotic medications. Psychiatric assessment plays an important role in dementia care in AL and warrants further examination. Results could be helpful for applied behavioral researchers interested in developing ways to improve the identification of antecedents of BEs of persons with dementia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".