Effects of a person‐centred and thriving‐promoting intervention on nursing home residents’ experiences of thriving and person‐centredness of the environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effects of a person-centred and thriving-promoting intervention on nursing home residents´ experiences of thriving and person-centredness of the environment, and to evaluate if the effects varied between female and male residents. DESIGN: A multi-centre, non-equivalent controlled group before-after intervention design. METHODS: Six nursing homes in Australia, Norway and Sweden were allocated to either intervention or control group. The intervention comprised a staff educational programme. A survey using proxy-ratings by staff was administered before (T0), immediately after (T1) and six months after (T2) the intervention. The sample varied between 205 and 292 residents. Linear regression models were used to explore effects. RESULTS: Statistically significant effects were found on experiences of thriving and person-centredness of the environment. These effects were significant for male residents but not for female residents. The results emphasize the importance of individually tailored social and recreational activities.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".