Developing a Regional Strategy for Older Adults Living With Frailty: Recommendations From Patients, Family Caregivers and Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>Introduction:</strong> Health care organizations are increasingly recognizing the need to integrate the health care system to better care for older adults. We partnered with a local health centre to inform the development of a <em>Regional Frail Senior Strategy</em> for Southwestern Ontario, Canada. <strong>Methodology:</strong> Interviews were conducted with 12 older adults (65+, with chronic conditions) and family caregivers. 44 interviews were also completed with health care providers from across the region. To engage with a range of stakeholders on the strategy, four feedback fairs were hosted. Interviewees emphasized the importance of person and family-centred care, integration of health care services, issues of access, and further training and education for health care professionals. Findings and stakeholder feedback were synthesized into 14 recommendations. <strong>Discussion:</strong> The data and recommendations outlined in this paper informed the development of the frailty strategy for a region in Ontario. Participatory methods and stakeholder engagement identified pertinent themes related to enhancing care for older adults with frailty. <strong>Conclusion:</strong> The creation of a frailty strategy is imperative in recognizing and responding to the needs of older adults with complex conditions. Our approach may be relevant to other organizations and health systems interested in developing their own regional frailty strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".