Effects of Bathing Skills Training on Independence and Satisfaction of Older Adults Living in a Nursing Home: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dependence in bathing is the most common activities of daily living (ADLs) dependency among older adults.The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of bathing skills training on the independence and satisfaction of older adults living in nursing homes. Methods:In this randomized controlled trial, 80 participants were assigned randomly to the intervention (n = 40) and control groups (n = 40).The intervention group received 10 weekly bathing skills training sessions, with each session lasting about 60 minutes, while the control group received no direct training.The evaluation was conducted using the Modified Barthel Index (MBI) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM).Analysis of variance for repeated measurements was used to test the effect of intervention at the baseline, post-intervention, and follow-up.Results: The mean improvement in the MBI was greater for the intervention group (P < 0.001; partial η2 = 0.34), which remained significant at the follow-up (P < 0.001; partial η2 = 0.41).The greater mean change of the COPM-Performance was significant in the intervention group (P < 0.001; partial η2 = 0.17), which remained significant at the follow-up (P < 0.001; partial η2 = 0.19).The greater mean improvement of the COPM-Satisfaction was observed for the intervention group (P < 0.001; partial η2 = 0.36), which remained at the follow-up (P = 0.001; partial η2 = 0.42).Conclusion: Bathing skills training is effective in improving the ADLs independence and satisfaction in older adults living in nursing homes; thus, it is recommended to be included in the schedules of nursing 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".