Relationship between environmental factors and responsive behaviours in long-term care homes: a secondary data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Responsive behaviours (eg, wandering, resisting care and verbal abuse) are a continuing issue for staff and individuals living in long-term care (LTC) homes. The LTC environment can influence responsive behaviours and is a factor in determining the quality of life for those living there. The ways in which the quality of the environment might influence responsive behaviours has not been investigated yet. We hypothesised that better quality environments would be associated with reduced rates of responsive behaviours. We used a tool that simultaneously encompasses human and structural elements of the environment, a novel approach in this field of research. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, using data collected from September 2014 to May 2015 as part of the Translating Research in Elder Care research programme. SETTING: A representative, stratified (size, owner-operator model and health region) random sample of 76 LTC homes in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba. PARTICIPANTS: 13 224 individuals (67.3% females) living in participating LTC homes. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of care unit work environment was assessed using the observable indicators of quality (OIQ) tool. Responsive behaviours were assessed using routinely collected Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set V.2.0 data. RESULTS: Adjusted regression coefficients of overall Aggressive Behaviour Scale score and interpersonal communication were 0.02 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.045), grooming 0.06 (95% CI -0.032 to 0.157), environment-basics 0.067 (95% CI 0.024 to 0.110), odour -0.066 (95% CI -0.137 to -0.004), care delivery -0.007 (95% CI -0.033 to 0.019), environment-access -0.027 (95% CI -0.062 to 0.007), environment-homelike -0.034 (95% CI -0.065 to -0.002) and total OIQ score 0.003 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: We found small associations between the environmental quality and responsive behaviours in Western Canadian LTC homes. Higher scores on homelikeness were associated with decreased responsive behaviours. Higher scores on basic environmental quality were associated with increased responsive behaviours.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".