How can care home activities facilitate social connection in residents? A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Good social connection is associated with better physical and mental health but care home residents experience barriers to social connection. Activities present a potential avenue for improving social connection in care homes but residents often experience loneliness despite access to activity programmes. We therefore aimed to identify what aspects of activities facilitate social connection in care home residents.Method Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews that were analysed using Thematic Analysis. A purposive sample of 35 participants, including 12 residents, 10 family caregivers, nine care home staff and four clinicians, recruited from UK care homes.Results We found four main themes describing features of activities important for facilitating social connection: (1) personalisation with respect to residents’ interests, social preferences, and cognitive ability; (2) activities which foster a sense of community; (3) finding and emphasising things in common that residents share; and (4) facilitating a sense of involvement with others.Conclusion We identified the key aspects of activities which facilitate social connection in care homes. These findings can be applied to a range of existing and newly designed activities in care homes and inform the development and testing of psychosocial interventions aiming to improve social connection.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".