“Nobody But a Family Member Can Do It Quite the Same Way”: Understanding the Meaning of Mealtimes to Residents and Families in Long-Term Care Homes During the Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Meals in long-term care (LTC) are essential to residents not only for nutrition and their physical well-being but also for their social interactions supporting resident quality of life. This study aims to understand the mealtime experiences of residents and family care partners during the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic when restrictions were put in place in LTC and retirement homes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Interpretive description analysis of qualitative interviews in LTC and retirement homes, with 17 family care partners and 4 residents. Convenience and snowball sampling was used to recruit participants for telephone interviews. RESULTS: Three themes were generated. Compromised mealtimes mean compromising community-meals were seen by participants as a key social and community-building event of the home; they reported this loss of community with pandemic restrictions. Participants noted that family care partners are indispensable at meals for social, psychological, and physical support. The dangers of eating alone spoke to the social isolation reported by participants that occurred during the pandemic and the risks they described of eating alone. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms the importance of mealtimes in LTC and retirement homes to community building and extends our understanding of the importance of family inclusion at meals and why eating alone, as happened during COVID-19, was so detrimental to residents. Effort needs to be made to value this communal activity for the well-being of residents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".