Care aides' perceptions of caring for residents with a history of psychological trauma in Western Canadian care homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore care aide perceptions of caring for residents who aides perceived had past psychological trauma. METHODS: Through cognitive interviews, we developed a definition of trauma for four survey questions about caring for residents with psychological trauma. We added these questions to our routine care aide survey in 91 care homes in Western Canada (September 2019 to February 2020). We asked if care aides perceived that they were caring for residents with trauma, how often, types of trauma experienced, and what indication led them to perceive a resident had experienced trauma. We analyzed data using content analysis (open-ended questions) and regression analyses (closed-ended questions). RESULTS: Three thousand seven hundred and sixty five care aides responded (70% response rate) to the survey, and 53% perceived caring for one or more residents with a history of psychological trauma in the previous 2 weeks. Within six categories of traumatic events, abuse (35%) and war exposure (26%) were most common. Most common indications of trauma reported by care aides (five categories) were reliving the experience or having intrusive symptoms (28%) and avoidant behaviors (24%). Care aides were more likely to report caring for a resident who they perceived had experienced past psychological trauma if they were younger, spoke English as their first language, self-reported experiencing more aggression from residents, or who worked in not-for-profit homes. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study supports the need for further study of care aides' perceptions and experiences of caring for residents with past trauma, and the effects of caring for these residents on quality of work life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".