Dementia Care Partner Preparedness and Desire to Seek Long-Term Care at Hospital Discharge: Mediating Roles of Care Receiver Clinical Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore the mediating roles of care receiver clinical factors on the relationship between care partner preparedness and care partner desire to seek long-term care admission for persons living with dementia at hospital discharge. METHODS: This study analyzed data from the Family centered Function-focused Care (Fam-FFC), which included 424 care receiver and care partner dyads. A multiple mediation model examined the indirect effects of care partner preparedness on the desire to seek long-term care through care receiver clinical factors (behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia [BPSD], comorbidities, delirium severity, physical function, and cognition). RESULTS: Delirium severity and physical function partially mediated the relationship between care partner preparedness and care partner desire to seek long-term care admission (B = -.011; 95% CI = -.019, -.003, and B = -.013; 95% CI = -.027, -.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions should enhance care partner preparedness and address delirium severity and physical function in hospitalized persons with dementia to prevent unwanted nursing home placement at hospital discharge. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Integrating care partner preparedness and care receiver clinical factors (delirium severity and physical function) into discharge planning may minimize care partner desire to seek long-term care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".