Staff Responses to Sexual Self-Stimulation by Residents with Dementia Living in Residential Aged Care Facilities: A Qualitative Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review synthesizes qualitative evidence about staff members' responses to sexual selfstimulation by residents with dementia living in residential aged care facilities, in an effort to understand the kinds of attitudes their responses convey to residents.A three-step search strategy was created by a librarian and used to identify English language qualitative primary research studies.The search was conducted across four academic databases (Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Education Resources Information Centre).Grey literature searches were conducted in Google and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.The reference lists of included studies were also searched for additional resources.Two papers met the inclusion criteria.Two researchers independently appraised the quality of the studies and both were of sufficient quality to merit inclusion.Data extraction was performed by two independent researchers and revealed 24 findings.From these findings, all researchers agreed upon two overarching synthesized findings: 1) staff responses (including normalizing, avoiding interference, assisting) convey positive attitudes toward selfstimulation by residents with dementia in residential aged care and 2) staff responses (including reprimanding, pathologizing, and reporting to superiors) convey negative attitudes toward self-stimulation in this context.From these findings, the researchers highlight a particular need for research that explores residents' experiences of these encounters, along with research about variations between staff members' hypothetical responses and their actual responses in practice.The researchers also highlight a need for increased conversation about the nature of public/private space in residential aged care facilities, which influence understandings of sexual propriety in these environments.
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 | 0.057 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".