ENGAGEMENT OF FAMILY/CARE PARTNERS OF OLDER ADULT LONG-TERM CARE RESIDENTS WITH PHYSIOTHERAPISTS: A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this scoping review was to summarize and critically evaluate literature describing the relationship between physical therapists and family/care partners of older adults living in long-term care homes. A librarian-informed search strategy was applied to Medline, EMBASE, Proquest, PsychINFO, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases. Papers were included if they addressed rehabilitation, physical therapists, family/care partners, and long-term care (LTC) setting or equivalent. Five papers were retrieved; quality was mid-to high. Challenges included minimal integration of family/care partners into the long-term care home ’team’, inconsistent resident-centred health goals across staff, and lack of awareness about availability of physical therapy services within long-term care homes. Value for family/care partners as members of the health care team included their historical knowledge of their loved one, ability to perceive and manage behaviour change, signs/symptoms of pain by their loved ones with impaired communication (e.g., dementia diagnosis), and the resource of time and availability to engage in rehabilitation-related care activity. There is little information about partnership with family/care partners of older adults living in long-term care homes. The timing is optimal to explore the engagement of family/care partners in providing care and building rehabilitation capacity within the context of increasing nursing workloads, nurses’ experience of burnout, difficulty in attraction and retention of care staff in long-term care homes, and challenges in funding for and standards in provision of optimal rehabilitation for older adult residents of long-term care 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 | 0.017 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".