MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390065528 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igad104.0148

IMPLICATIONS OF RESIDENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ON RESIDENT-TO-RESIDENT AGGRESSION

2023· article· en· W4390065528 on OpenAlexaff
Elsie Yan, Daniel W. L. Lai, Sheung Tak Cheng, Timothy Kwok, VW Lou, Habib Chaudhury, Karl Pillemer, Mark S. Lachs

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionAttractivenessDementiaLong-term careMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examines factors associated with resident-to-resident aggression (RRA) in long term care facilities in Hong Kong. A total of 800 personal care worker participated. Participants averaged 42.03 years of age (SD=7.63), were mostly female (92.7%), married (79.1%) and reported an average of 6.28 years of experience in long term care. 96.9 percent of the participants provided care to residents with dementia but 58.9% considered the training they received insufficient. RRA was common: All participants reported having witnessed verbal aggression (100%), 18% disruptive behaviors, 11.8% physical violence, and 3.1% sexual aggression. The following analysis used a subset of 412 participant from 29 long term care facilities where environmental assessments were conducted. General linear model analysis showed that RRA was associated with both resident and environmental characteristics. Victims’ neuropsychiatry symptoms, perpetrator male gender and neuropsychiatric symptoms were associated with higher RRA. Separation of residents with and without dementia, inappropriate use of nursing unit for residents as measured by Therapeutic Environment Screening Survey for Nursing Homes (TESS-NH), lack of functional and attractiveness courtyard, less cleanliness of spaces, insufficient lighting and insufficient orientation / cueing as measured by Professional Environmental Assessment Procedure (PEAP) were also associated with higher RRA. There is an urgent need to prevent and intervene RRA in long term care facilities. Improving management of neuropsychiatric symptoms and creating a supportive and accommodating environment could be helpful in this regard.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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 venueInnovation in AgingSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207