CAREGIVER INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS WITH RESIDENT CARE IN ASSISTED LIVING BEFORE AND DURING COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Family/friend caregivers are essential in promoting assisted living (AL) residents’ health/well-being, but their involvement was restricted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Care needs in AL are similarly complex as in nursing homes, but fewer staffing resources and services are available. Caregiver involvement and concerns with care of AL residents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic is a critical knowledge gap. This prospective cohort study collected online surveys from caregivers to AL residents in Western Canada. Surveys assessed socio-demographics, ways of visiting or communicating with residents, involvement in care tasks, concerns with resident physical/mental health, perceived lack of resident access to care services, and whether caregivers felt well informed/involved with resident care. Our first survey assessed outcomes in the three months before and after pandemic wave 1 (03/2020), our second survey assessed outcomes in pandemic wave 2 (11/2020 -02/2021). Based on 386 responses, in-person visits dropped significantly in wave 1 (91.5% to 30.6%) and so did caregiver involvement in nearly all care tasks (e.g., toileting: 7.5% to 2.6%, social/recreational activities: 73.6% to 25.7%). While these rates increased in wave 2, most did not return to pre-pandemic levels. Caregiver concerns increased in wave 1 (e.g., concerns about residents’ depressed mood: from 21.3% to 50.3%) and stayed high in wave 2. Concerns were particularly high (e.g., >20% higher for depressed mood) among caregivers who did not feel well informed/involved with resident care. Continued caregiver involvement in resident care and communication with caregivers is key to mitigating caregiver concerns and supporting caregiver and resident well-being.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".