The challenges of aging in place for older adults at risk of self‐neglect and expectations regarding smart environments: Perspectives of older adults and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Self‐neglect is a behavior found in older adults with cognitive deficits. It manifests through the refusal, or inability, to care for themselves and puts them at higher risk for institutionalization. In Quebec, administrators in home care services are increasingly open to offering smart environments as part of their services to this clientele as it can help identify unfulfilled needs. However, little information is available about the implementation of technology in home care services, including the perspective of this clientele and their family. An embedded case‐study was conducted to provide insight on their perception of obstacles for home care and their expectations of technological solutions. Method Through individual interviews, qualitative data regarding the perspectives of older adults at risk of self‐neglect (n = 5) and their caregivers (n = 3) was collected in regard to: 1) current obstacles at home; and 2) expectations toward technology to optimize their functional autonomy. Data was analyzed using the approach of Miles, Huberman and Saldana. Result Despite the fact that some older adults (n = 3) presenting self‐neglect perceive themselves as functioning well at home and not needing more help than they already receive from home care service, all older adults (n = 5) perceived risks in their home environment and described difficulties with their memory (e.g. forgetting appointments) and mobility (e.g. falls). Similar difficulties were described by their caregivers, who also perceived some risks with remaining at home due to a deteriorating functional capacity. With respect to technology, it was identified that it could support the autonomy of the older adults in some aspects, but not replace current home services available. Technology also had to be easy to use and learn. Conclusion This study suggests that older adults at risk of self‐neglect and their caregivers believe that technology can support aging in place but in combination with other solutions. When implemented, technology should be adapted to the needs, values, and preference of clients and their family, to address as many of the individual’s perceived risks as possible.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".