Measurement of social connection in people with dementia living in care homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Social connection is a fundamental human need. For those living in long‐term care (LTC) settings, social connection influences quality of life and care. However, social connection has not been clearly conceptualized, nor is it routinely measured, in LTC. LTC residents have complex health needs, and are separated from previous social networks while residing in communal care environments, so measurement instruments need to be tailored and tested in these settings. Currently, there is no evidence‐based consensus on the best approaches to defining or measuring social connection in LTC homes. In this project, funded by an Alzheimer’s Association/Brain Canada Advancing Research on Care and Outcome Measurement grant, we aim to systematically describe all previous of social connection measures in LTC residents and evaluate their psychometric properties. Methods We searched eight databases until November 18th, 2021. We used the COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) filter to identify studies reporting instrument measurement properties. We included primary studies reporting ≥1 psychometric property (including validity, reliability, internal consistency, responsiveness) of a measure of social connection (including social engagement/ support/ networks/ isolation, loneliness, and other related constructs), tested among LTC residents. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and then conduct full text review. To assess measure form and content, we will describe the measures and their target settings, and conduct a thematic content analysis on all items. To evaluate psychometric properties, we will assess each measure using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist and summarize the evidence for the nine measurement properties. We will rate the measure overall using a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results After removing duplicates, our search yielded 5945 studies. We excluded 5818 studies after screening titles and abstracts, leaving 127 papers for full text review. Conclusions We will present results of this ongoing systematic review on content and psychometric properties of social connection measures in LTC residents. Through this presentation, we will elicit feedback from stakeholders on our findings to date. This feedback will inform our development of a new measure to assess social connection in people living in LTC homes.
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 | 0.018 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".