Insight into the experiences of caregivers of older adults in long‐term care homes: A photovoice study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore the lived experiences of caregivers of people living in long-term care (LTC) homes during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and potential supports and resources needed to improve caregivers' quality of life. BACKGROUND: Carers (or care partners) of adults in LTC contribute substantially to the health and well-being of their loved ones by providing physical care, emotional support and companionship. Despite their critical role, little is known about how caregivers have been impacted by the pandemic. DESIGN: An interpretive descriptive approach that incorporated the photovoice method was used. METHODS: Using a purposive sampling strategy, six family carers in Ontario, Canada were recruited between September and December 2021. Over a 4-week period, caregivers took pictures depicting their experience of the pandemic that were shared in a virtual focus group. Visual and text data were analysed using thematic analysis with an inductive approach. FINDINGS: Caregivers expressed feelings of frustration, confusion and joy. Emerging themes included: (i) feeling like a 'criminal' amidst visitor restrictions and rules; (ii) experiencing uncertainty and disappointment in the quality of care of long-term care homes; (iii) going through burnout; and (iv) focusing on small joys and cherished memories. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of visual and textual methods provided unique insight into the mental distress, isolation and intense emotional burdens experienced by caregivers during the pandemic. IMPACT: Our findings underscore the need for LTC organizations to work in unison with caregivers to optimize the care of residents and support the mental health of caregivers. REPORTING METHOD: This work adhered to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: The caregivers included in the study were involved in the co-creative process as active contributors informing the design and validation of the codes and themes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".