MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382049656 · doi:10.2196/preprints.50137

Web-Based Presence for Social Connectedness in Long-Term Care: Protocol for a Qualitative Multimethods Study (Preprint)

2023· preprint· en· W4382049656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Garnett, Halyna Yurkiv, Richard Booth, Denise M. Connelly, Lorie Donelle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial connectednessThematic analysisQualitative researchSocial mediaPsychologyPreprintMental healthSocial supportSense of communityContent analysisSocial psychologyApplied psychologySociologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic and resultant restrictions on social gatherings significantly impacted many peoples’ sense of social connectedness, defined as an individual’s subjective sense of having close relationships with others. Older adults living in long-term care homes (LTCHs) experienced extreme restrictions on social gatherings, which negatively impacted their physical and mental health as well as the health and well-being of their family caregivers. Their experiences highlighted the need to reconceptualize social connectedness. In particular, the pandemic highlighted the need to explore novel ways to attain fulfilling relationships with others in the absence of physical gatherings such as through the use of a hybridized system of web-based and in-person presence. OBJECTIVE Given the potential benefits and challenges of web-based presence technology within LTCHs, the proposed research objectives are to (1) explore experiences regarding the use of web-based presence technology (WPT) in support of social connectedness between older adults in LTCHs and their family members, and (2) identify the contextual factors that must be addressed for successful WPT implementation within LTCHs. METHODS This study will take place in south western Ontario, Canada, and be guided by a qualitative multimethod research design conducted in three stages: (1) qualitive description with in-depth qualitative interviews guided by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and analyzed using content analysis; (2) qualitative description and document analysis methodologies, informed by content and thematic analysis methods; and (3) explicit between-methods triangulation of study findings from stages 1 and 2, interpretation of findings and development of a guiding framework for technology implementation within LTCHs. Using a purposeful, maximum variation sampling approach, stage 1 will involve recruiting approximately 45 participants comprising a range of older adults, family members (30 participants) and staff (15 participants) within several LTCH settings. In stage 2, theoretical sampling will be used to recruit key LTCH stakeholders (directors, administrators, and IT support). In stage 3, the findings from stages 1 and 2 will be triangulated and interpreted to develop a working framework for WPT usage within LTCHs. RESULTS Data collection will begin in fall 2023. The findings emerging from this study will provide insights and understanding about how the factors, barriers, and facilitators to embedding and spreading WPT in LTCHs may benefit or negatively impact older adults in LTCHs, family caregivers, and staff and administrators of LTCHs. CONCLUSIONS The results of this research study will provide a greater understanding of potential approaches that could be used to successfully integrate WPTs in LTCHs. Additionally, benefits as well as challenges for older adults in LTCHs, family caregivers, and staff and administrators of LTCHs will be identified. These findings will help increase knowledge and understanding of how WPT may be used to support social connectedness between older adults in LTCHs and their family members. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/50137

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.244
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→