FAMILY INVOLVEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA LTC FACILITIES DURING A PANDEMIC: THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Family involvement in long-term care is linked directly to LTC resident quality of life and family satisfaction with care. The public health restrictions implemented to protect the vulnerable LTC population, the majority of whom have some type and level of dementia, represented a serious breach of families’ ability to visit and care for their institutionalized loved ones. While much of the early research on the impact of the restrictions focused on the LTC resident and the paid care staff, the purpose of this study was to explore what impacts COVID-19 restrictions had on family involvement and family well-being in LTC facilities across the province of British Columbia. A mixed-methods design using a survey, interviews, and arts-based focus groups was the approach implemented. Families (direct, friends, legal guardians) of residents living in long-term care settings were invited to participate. Using a nested approach, online and paper-based surveys (N=55) were distributed, one-to-one interviews conducted (N=19), ending with two arts-based focus groups (n=4 each focus group). Qualitative interview data revealed six different but interconnected themes through the thematic analysis of the data. The themes were: 1) Quality of life, 2) Quality of care, 3) Mental Health concerns, 4) Communication, 5) Communication Strategies, and 6) The Rules. Quantitative results indicated positive relationships between satisfaction with care and a series of variables that aligned with the qualitative themes (example: satisfaction and treatment of family by LTC staff). Strategies offered by family participants to improve public health policies for future outbreaks are reviewed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".