Transitional care decision‐making through the eyes of older people and informal caregivers: An in‐depth interview‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older people with multifaceted care needs often require treatment and complex care across different settings. However, transitional care is often inadequately managed, and older people and their informal caregivers are not always sufficiently heard and/or supported in transitional care decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To explore older people's and informal caregivers' experiences with, views on, and needs concerning empowerment in transitional care decision-making. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in the TRANS-SENIOR consortium's collaborative research using semistructured in-depth interviews between October 2020 and June 2021 in Flanders, Belgium. A total of 29 people were interviewed, including 14 older people and 15 informal caregivers who faced a transition from home to another care setting or vice versa. Data were analysed according to the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. FINDINGS: Five themes were identified in relation to the participant's experiences, views and needs: involvement in the decision-making process; informal caregivers' burden of responsibility; the importance of information and support; reflections on the decision and influencing factors. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, older people and informal caregivers wished to be more seen, recognised, informed and proactively supported in transitional care decision-making. However, their preferences for greater involvement in decision-making vary and are affected by several factors that are both intrinsic and extrinsic. Therefore, healthcare systems might seek out age-tuned and person-centred empowerment approaches focusing on older people's and informal caregivers' empowerment. For future studies, we recommend developing specific strategies for such empowerment. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Older persons' representatives were involved in designing the TRANS-SENIOR programme of research, including the current study. Healthcare professionals and nursing care directors were involved in the study design and the selection and recruitment of participants.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".