Older Adults’ Quality of Life in Long-Term Care: A Cross-Sectional Comparison Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aims to assess changes in long-term care (LTC) residents’ quality of life (QoL) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A pre-test post-test study of 49 QoL measures, across four dimensions from the interRAI self-reported QoL survey, was conducted. Secondary data from 2019 (n = 116) and 2020 (n = 128) were analysed to assess the change in QoL. A significant decline in 12 measures was observed, indicating a change in QoL of LTC residents during the pandemic. Social life was the dimension mostly affected with residents reporting less opportunities to spend time with like-minded residents, explore new skills and interests, participate in meaningful religious activities, and have enjoyable things to do in the evenings. Several measures of personal control, staff responsiveness and care, and safety also demonstrated a significant change. The results can inform future strategies for pandemic and outbreak preparedness. Balancing the safety of residents with attention to their QoL should be a priority moving forward.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".