Comparison of the Mental Burden on Nursing Care Providers With and Without Mat-Type Sleep State Sensors at a Nursing Home in Tokyo, Japan: Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing need for nursing care has led to the increased burden on formal caregivers, with those in nursing homes having to deal with exhausting labor. Although research activities on the use of internet of things devices to support nursing care for older adults exist, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions among formal caregivers in nursing homes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate whether mat-type sleep state sensors for supporting nursing care can reduce the mental burden of formal caregivers in a nursing home. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental study at a nursing home in Tokyo, Japan. The study participants were formal caregivers who cared for residents in private rooms on the fourth and fifth floors of the nursing home. In the intervention group, formal caregivers took care of residents who used sleep state sensors on the fourth floor of the nursing home. The sleep state sensors were mat types and designed to detect body motion such as the frequency of toss and turning and to measure heartbeat and respiration. One sensor was placed on a bed in a private room. When body motion is detected, the information is instantly displayed on a monitor at a staff station. In addition, the mental condition of the formal caregivers was measured using a validated self-reported outcome measure-the Profile of Mood States (POMS), Short-Form, 2nd edition. Formal caregivers in both groups received the POMS at baseline, midpoint (week 4), and endpoint (week 8) to identify changes in these domains. The primary outcome was the difference in total mood disturbance (TMD) of the POMS at baseline and week 8. RESULTS: Of the 22 eligible formal caregivers, 12 (intervention group) utilized sleep state sensors for 8 weeks. The remaining 10 formal caregivers (control group) provided nursing care as usual. As for the primary outcome of the difference between TMD at baseline and week 8, TMD in the intervention group improved by -3.67 versus 4.70 in the control group, resulting in a mean difference of -8.37 (95% CI -32.02 to 15.29; P=.48) in favor of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The present 8-week study showed that sleep state sensing for elderly residents might not be associated with reduced mental burdens on formal caregivers in nursing homes.
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".