Drivers of COVID-19 Outcomes in Long-Term Care Facilities Using Multi-Level Analysis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the individual, organizational, and environmental factors which contributed to COVID-19-related outcomes in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). A systematic review was conducted to summarize and synthesize empirical studies using a multi-level analysis approach to address the identified influential factors. Five databases were searched on 23 May 2023. To be included in the review, studies had to be published in peer-reviewed journals or as grey literature containing relevant statistical data. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was employed to assess the methodological quality of each article included in this study. Of 2137 citations identified after exclusions, 99 records met the inclusion criteria. The predominant individual, organizational, and environmental factors that were most frequently found associated with the COVID-19 outbreak comprised older age, higher dependency level; lower staffing levels and lower star and subset domain ratings for the facility; and occupancy metrics and co-occurrences of outbreaks in counties and communities where the LTCFs were located, respectively. The primary individual, organizational, and environmental factors frequently linked to COVID-19-related deaths comprised age, and male sex; higher percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in LTCFs, as well as ownership types (including private, for-profit, and chain membership); and higher occupancy metrics and LTCF's size and bed capacity, respectively. Unfolding the risk factors collectively may mitigate the risk of outbreaks and pandemic-related mortality in LTCFs during future endemic and pandemics through developing and improving interventions that address those significant factors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".