Perspectives of substitute decision‐makers and staff about person‐centred physical activity in long‐term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This paper aims to explore the care processes that best exemplify person-centred care during physical activity (PA) for long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia from the perspectives of substitute decision-makers (SDMs) and LTC home staff. Little is known about how person-centred care is reflected during PA for residents with dementia, or the barriers and benefits to enacting person-centred care during PA. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were used to collect SDMs and LTC home staffs' perspectives on the importance of person-centred care during PA from two LTC homes in Canada. The McCormack and McCance person-centredness framework was used to guide thematic content analysis of responses. RESULTS: SDM (n = 26) and staff (n = 21) identified actions categorized under the sympathetic presence or engagement care processes from the person-centredness framework as most reflecting person-centred care. Benefits of person-centred care during PA were categorized into three themes: functional and physical, behavioural and communication and psychosocial improvements. Barriers to person-centred care during PA identified were lack of time, opportunities for meaningful activity in LTC setting and staff experiences with resident aggression. SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding the care processes that are most recognized as person-centred care and valued by SDMs and LTC home staff has implications for education and training. Insights into SDMs' care expectations regarding person-centred care can inform staff about which actions should be prioritized to meet care expectations and can foster relationships to the benefit of residents with dementia. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Study participants were not involved in the development of research questions, research design or outcome measures of this study.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".