Developmental Evaluation of the CHOICE+ Champion Training Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>Context:</strong> Mealtimes in residential care homes are important for social engagement and can encourage resident relationships. Yet, training programs to improve mealtime care practices in residential care settings remain limited in learning approaches and scope. <strong>Objectives:</strong> To determine whether a one-day Champion Training session would improve participants’ knowledge, skills, and confidence to implement a relationship-centred mealtime program (CHOICE+) in their homes. <strong>Methods:</strong> The study employed a pre-/post-test design to evaluate a train-the-trainer model using paper-based questionnaires. Thirty-four participants attended the training session; 25 participants completed pre/post training questionnaires based on Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model. Training included: 1) program implementation manual, 2) best-practices document, 3) educational resources and evaluation tools, 4) presentation on theory-based implementation strategies and behaviour change techniques, and 5) group discussion on applying strategies and techniques, problem-solving for implementation facilitators and barriers. <strong>Findings:</strong> More than half of attendees worked as Food Service Managers or Registered Dietitians. Participants identified several organizational factors that could impact their home’s readiness to implement CHOICE+, though they felt training to be acceptable and feasible for their homes. Participants reported increase in knowledge (8.4 ± 1.1), confidence (8.3 ± 1.4), and commitment (8.8 ± 1.4) to implement the relationship-centred mealtime program. There was no association with pre-training readiness, leadership, or home characteristics. <strong>Limitations:</strong> Generalizability is limited due to small sample size. Follow-up interviews on results of training could not be conducted due COVID-19 pandemic research restrictions. <strong>Implications:</strong> Champion Leader training is an effective and feasible learning approach to up-skill staff on change management and relationship-centred mealtime practices in residential care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".