Exploring nursing home resident and their care partner priorities for care using the Action-Project Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nursing home (NH) residents' experiences are embedded within their relationships to others. Our objectives were to describe how residents and care partners (family or staff members) jointly construct, discuss, and act on care priorities. METHODS: We used Action-Project Method, a qualitative method focused on action within social context. We recruited 15 residents and 12 care partners (5 family and 7 staff members) from 3 urban NHs in Alberta, Canada. Residents and care partners participated in a video-recorded conversation about their experiences in the NH, then individually reviewed the video-recording to add context to the conversation. Following transcription, preliminary narrative construction, and participant feedback, the research team conducted in-depth analysis to identify participant actions, goals, and projects, including those jointly shared by dyad members. RESULTS: All participants' intentions could be broadly described as "making time in the NH as good as possible" and projects were grouped into five categories: resident identity, relationships (both presence and absence), advocacy, positivity, and respectful care. Participants often raised issues of short-staffing as a significant barrier to respectful care. Care partners, especially staff, used positivity to redirect residents from difficult topics. Joint projects could be identified in some, but not all, cases. CONCLUSIONS: We found that maintaining a sense of identity, fostering relationships, and receiving respectful care were important to residents but that short-staffing created barriers. Methods to capture these aspects of the resident experience are needed but should not be influenced by care partners' tendency towards positivity in resident interactions.
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 | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".