Understanding the social and leisure needs of lonely and socially isolated older adults living in residential care: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Rates of loneliness and social isolation increase following the transition to residential care and are associated with poor health outcomes. One way to mitigate these experiences is through meaningful recreation, however, there is research to suggest that currently available programming does not meet the needs of lonely and socially isolated residents. Therefore, the objectives of the current study were to investigate: (1) the lived experience of loneliness and social isolation in residential care, (2) engagement and use of available resources by these residents, and (3) insights as to how programming can further address their needs.Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with ten staff members and 14 residents. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.Results: Three themes emerged from the data: (1) Feelings of loneliness and social isolation (subthemes: loneliness and social isolation differ, contributors, and coping strategies), (2) Recreation and social participation (subthemes: program engagement and barriers to participation), and (3) Supporting residents’ needs (subthemes: suggestions for meaningful recreation and resources).Conclusion: Loneliness and social isolation are idiographic experiences. Contributors to loneliness and social isolation are also reported as barriers to attending programming. Recommendations are made, many of which rely on greater staffing resources and psychoeducation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".