MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401401219 · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11331-2

Factors influencing long-term care facility performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4401401219 on OpenAlexafffund
Éric Tchouaket Nguemeleu, Katya Kruglova, Josiane Létourneau, Émilie Bélanger, Stéphanie Robins, Maripier Jubinville, Fatima El-Mousawi, Shiyang Shen, Idrissa Beogo, Drissa Sia

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
KeywordsPandemicMedicineNursing researchCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health administrationHealth informatics2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Public healthLong-term careTerm (time)NursingVirologyInternal medicineOutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc on long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Some LTCFs performed better than others at slowing COVID-19 transmission. Emerging literature has mostly described infection prevention and control strategies implemented by LTCFs during the pandemic. However, there is a need for a comprehensive review of factors that influenced the performance of LTCFs in containing COVID-19 spread to inform public health policy. OBJECTIVE: To build on the existing literature, we conducted a scoping review of factors that influenced LTCF performance during the COVID-19 pandemic using a multidimensional conceptual framework of performance. METHODS: , 2021. Retrieved records were screened for context (COVID-19 pandemic), population (LTCFs), interest (internal and external factors that influenced LTCF performance), and outcomes (dimensions of performance: equity, accessibility, reactivity, safety, continuity, efficacy, viability, efficiency). Descriptive characteristics of included articles were summarized. Dimensions of performance as well as internal (e.g., facility characteristics) and external (e.g., visitors) factors identified to have influenced LTCF performance were presented. RESULTS: We retained 140 articles of which 68% were classified as research articles, 47% originated in North America, and most covered a period between March and July 2020. The most frequent dimensions of performance were "efficacy" (75.7%) and "safety" (75.7%). The most common internal factors were "organizational context" (72.9%) and "human resources" (62.1%), and the most common external factors were "visitors" (27.1%) and "public health guidelines" (25.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Our review contributes to a global interest in understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable populations residing and working in LTCFs. Though a myriad of factors were reported, a lack of randomized controlled trials makes it impossible to establish causality between the identified factors and LTCF performance. The use of a multidimensional framework can be recommended to evaluate healthcare system performance not merely in terms of efficacy and safety, but alongside other critical dimensions such as efficiency and equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Research Registry ID: researchregistry7026.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0160.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.366
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services Research→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→