Empowering Ontario’s long-term care residents to shape the place they call home: a codesign protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada's long-term care (LTC) homes were founded on an institutional model that viewed residents as passive recipients of care. Many homes continue to follow this model leaving residents removed from operational decision-making within their homes. However, involving residents in the design of their LTC home's environment, programmes and operations can improve the residents' quality of life and other outcomes. This codesign project creates a toolkit/resource for LTC homes to facilitate meaningful resident engagement in their home's organisational design and governance. METHOD: This three-part project consists of a scoping review, qualitative interviews, toolkit/resource development and prototyping. In part 1, we conduct a scoping review to synthesise existing knowledge on approaches to engaging LTC home residents in organisational design and governance of their LTC homes, as well as explore barriers, challenges and facilitators of engagement, considerations for diversity and cognitive change, and approaches to evaluation. In part 2, we will have interviews and focus groups with residents, team members (staff) and administrators to assess community capacity to implement and sustain a programme to engage LTC residents in organisational design and governance of their LTC homes. The third part of our project uses these findings to help codesign toolkit(s)/resource(s) to enable the engagement of LTC residents in the organisational design and governance of their LTC homes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project is conducted in partnership with the Ontario Association of Residents' Councils. We will leverage their communication to disseminate findings and support the use of the codesigned toolkit(s)/resource(S) with knowledge users. We will also publish the study results in an academic journal and present at conferences, webinars and workshops. These results can influence practices within LTC homes by inspiring an organisational culture where residents help shape the place they call home. The interviews and focus groups, conducted in part 2, have been submitted to the University Health Network Research Ethics Board.
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 | 0.081 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.008 |
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".