Quality of life’ evaluation for individuals with enduring mental illness transitioning from institutional residential care to supported community living arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction HSE ‘Vision for Change, 2006’ placed emphasis on person-centred, recovery-oriented, community-integrated treatment. The high support residential hostel in Tuam ‘Toghermore House’ is not integrated into the community and was scheduled to be closed as a residence in the last quarter of 2019. The individuals whom accessed support from Toghermore House were offered residential places in community settings in the urban area of Tuam with support plans according to individual assessed needs. Objectives To assess the quality of life of individuals accessing the Rehabilitation & Recovery Service and who are residing in supported and independent accommodation in Tuam. Methods Cross sectional study. Scales used were Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life Scale (MANSA) including both objective and subjective components and the INSPIRE scale which gathered information about the support and relationship each individual has with their assigned keyworker. SPSS 24 was used for data analysis. Results 27/32 responses. Mean age: 52 years, males: 78% and schizophrenia: most common primary diagnosis (52%), mean duration of illness: 28 years 3 months. 74% of individuals were satisfied with their life, 78% with their health and 56% with mental health. Only three individuals were employed and were happy with work and finances. 81.5% service users reported to have a good quality of life but only 59% felt in control of their lives. Conclusions Majority of individuals reported having a good quality of life and being satisfied with their overall health and current living arrangements. Meaningful occupation and subjective supportive therapeutic relationships are predictors of enhanced quality of life. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".