Preparation for Working in Long Term Care Homes: Recommendations on Therapeutic Recreation Curricula from Recreation Therapists and Staff in Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As our population ages, more seniors will require care in long term care (LTC) homes, including care from recreation therapists and staff. This study examined recreation therapists and staff’s retrospective views of what would make them better prepared for working in LTC homes. A questionnaire distributed to 290 LTC homes in Ontario was completed by 487 recreation therapists and staff. Data were analyzed using ANOVAS and frequencies. Participants ranked experience as the most important and education as the least important factor for preparing them to work in LTC. Participants indicated increased practicum experience and knowledge of charting and documentation would help prepare them to work in LTC. The results of our study suggest the need for further training in gerontological competences for TR students, such as incorporating interprofessional collaboration and experience into TR curricula. TR practitioners can also enhance their learning by collaborating with others through communities of practice.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it