Qualitative analysis of a virtual research meeting summarises expert-based strategies to promote hydration in residential care during COVID-19 and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Poor fluid intake is a complex and long-standing issue in residential care, further exacerbated by COVID-19 infection control procedures. There is no consensus on how best to prevent dehydration in residents who vary in their primary reasons for insufficient fluid intake for a variety of reasons. The objectives of this research were to determine expert and provider perspectives on: (1) how COVID-19 procedures impacted hydration in residential care and potential solutions to mitigate these challenges and (2) strategies that could target five types of residents based on an oral hydration typology focused on root causes of low fluid intake. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on virtual group discussion. The discussion was audiorecorded with supplementary field notes. Qualitative content analysis was completed. SETTING: Residential care. PARTICIPANTS: 27 invited researcher and provider experts. RESULTS: Challenges that have potentially impacted hydration of residents because of COVID-19 procedures were categorised as resident (eg, apathy), staff (eg, new staff) and home-related (eg, physical distancing in dining rooms). Potential solutions were offered, such as fun opportunities (eg, popsicle) for distanced interactions; training new staff on how to approach specific residents and encourage drinking; and automatically providing water at meals. Several strategies were mapped to the typology of five types of residents with low intake (eg, sipper) and categorised as: supplies (eg, vessels with graduated markings), timing (eg, identify best time of day for drinking), facility context (eg, identify preferred beverages), socialisation (eg, promote drinking as a social activity) and education (eg, educate cognitively well on water consumption goals). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has necessitated new procedures and routines in residential care, some of which can be optimised to promote hydration. A variety of strategies to meet the hydration needs of different subgroups of residents can be compiled into multicomponent interventions for future research.
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 | 0.020 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".