MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170419073 · doi:10.31389/jltc.47

Profile of Residents with Mental Disorders in Canadian Long-Term Care Facilities: A Cross-Sectional Study

2021· article· en· W3170419073 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Long-Term Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong-term careContext (archaeology)DementiaMedicinePopulationCross-sectional studyGerontologyPsychiatryDiseasePsychologyFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<strong>Brief Summary:</strong> Residents in long-term care facilities in Canada with mental and cognitive disorders have complex care needs. To meet these needs an integrated model of care is recommended. <strong>Context:</strong> The high prevalence of mental disorders in residents of long-term care (LTC) facilities raises serious concerns for facility operators and staff. These residents have multiple vulnerabilities that facility staff should have the necessary knowledge and skills to properly meet their needs. <strong>Objectives:</strong> To describe the profile of residents with mental disorders (MD) and Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) in Canadian long-term care (LTC) facilities. <strong>Findings:</strong> Seventy-six percent of residents had MD (40%) and ADRD (36%). These residents compared to those without such disorders were more likely to be cognitively impaired, manifest aggressive behavior, receive psychotropic drugs, and physically restrained, and less likely to be socially engaged. <strong>Strengths and Limitations:</strong> The large representative sample was a key strength. The findings add to the knowledge about the profile of LTC residents. The cross-sectional design of the study limits the findings to the population studied. <strong>Implications:</strong> Residents with MD and ADRD compared to those without such disorders are highly vulnerable because of their double burden of mental and physical comorbidities. Their profile may be of interest to LTC facility operators, clinicians, and policy makers about their complex care needs. Our findings raise awareness of the need for trained LTC facility staff for knowledge and skills in psychogeriatric conditions to assess, plan, and implement appropriate interventions for these residents. Coordinated and integrated models of care with access to psychogeriatric specialists such as psychiatrists or advanced practice nurses will also be of benefit to them.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it