Feasibility and Acceptability Testing of Evidence-Based Hydration Strategies for Residential Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined stakeholder perspectives on the perceived effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of 20 evidence-based strategies appropriate for residential care via an online survey (N= 162). Most participants worked in long-term care (83%), were direct care providers (62%), worked in food/nutrition roles (55%), and identified as female (94%). Strategies that were rated as effective, feasible, and likely to be used in the future were social drinking events, increased drink options at meals, and pre-thickened drinks. Participants also listed their top strategies for inclusion in a multicomponent intervention. Responses to open-ended questions provided insight on implementation, compliance, and budget constraints. Participant perspectives provide insight into developing a multicomponent intervention. Strategies prioritized for such an intervention include: staff education, social drinking opportunities, drinks trolley, volunteer support, improved beverage availability, hydration reminders, offering preferred beverages, and prompting residents to drink using various cues. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, 15(1), 27–38.]
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 | 0.120 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".