Resident-, family-, and staff-identified goals for rehabilitation of long-term care residents with dementia: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia can benefit from rehabilitation to improve function and quality of life. However, specific goals for rehabilitation with this population are not always clear. The purpose of this study was to describe the goals for rehabilitation for LTC residents with dementia from the perspective of residents, family, and staff. METHODS: This was a phenomenological qualitative study. LTC residents with moderate to severe dementia, family members, and staff were recruited from two LTC homes in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and field notes from observations with residents while they were being active within the home. Data were analyzed via the principles of thematic content analysis, mapped onto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Model, and reported by the participant group (i.e., residents, family, or staff). RESULTS: The 15 participants were three female residents aged 82 to 98 years, seven predominantly (86%) female family members aged 56 to 74 years, and five staff members (two females, three males, aged 22 to 55 years) who were physiotherapists, a physiotherapy assistant, a healthcare aide, and a registered licenced practical nurse. Most identified goals fell within the activities and participation constructs of the ICF model and focused on maintaining or improving function, mobility, and quality of life. Specific themes included preventing falls, walking or locomoting, stair climbing, maintaining activities of daily living, engaging in enjoyable exercise, maintaining independence and human connections, keeping busy, leaving the home for activities, and participating in group activities. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation goals for LTC residents living with dementia often focus on quality of life and functional activities and participation in LTC and family activities and events. Function and quality of life are interrelated, whereby functional goals influence quality of life. While some goals focus on improvement in function, maintenance or prevention of decline were also key elements. Future work should ensure rehabilitation interventions are developed relative to individually identified goals, and interventional success is measured in relation to the goal.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".