MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402676644 · doi:10.2196/preprints.66338

Examining Quality of Work Life in Atlantic Canadian Long-Term Care Homes: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Survey Study (Preprint)

2024· preprint· en· W4402676644 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janice Keefe, Rose McCloskey, Marilyn J. Hodgins, Lori E. Weeks, Carole A. Estabrooks

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintWorkforceWork (physics)Protocol (science)Term (time)Quality (philosophy)PsychologyGerontologyMedicineEngineeringComputer scienceEconomic growthEconomicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND The Canadian long-term care (LTC) workforce cares for increasingly complex residents. With greater care needs come greater demands. Despite this, LTC staffing and resources are largely unchanged and underresearched over the last decade. The Atlantic provinces are home to the oldest population in Canada, indicating a high need for LTC. The health and well-being of the LTC workforce are critical components of care quality, yet only in Western Canada are such data routinely and systematically collected. Translating Research in Elder Care is a 2-decade research program studying the LTC work environment and has found strong links between the working conditions of LTC staff and resident outcomes. We draw upon their success to generate the evidence needed to understand, support, and manage the LTC workforce in Canada’s four Atlantic provinces. OBJECTIVE This study aims (1) to assess the quality of work life among staff in LTC homes in Atlantic Canada; (2) to examine the effects of the work environment on the quality of work life; and (3) to build capacity for research in the LTC sector in Atlantic Canada among knowledge users, researchers, and trainees. The objective of this paper is to describe the approach needed to examine the quality of work life and health of care staff in LTC homes. METHODS Stratified random sampling will be used to recruit homes in Atlantic Canada. The sampling frame was designed to recruit 25% of the LTC homes in each of the 4 provinces with proportional representation by size; ownership model; and, if applicable, region or language. Key outcome variables include measures of mental health and well-being, quality of work life, intention to leave, workplace context, and missed or rushed care. Primary data will be obtained through structured interviews with care aides and web-based surveys from registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, managers, and allied health providers. Eligible participants were from an LTC home with at least 25 residents, 90% of whom were aged 65 years or older, and had worked in the home for at least 3 months. Multivariate analyses include regression analysis for explaining predictors of quality of work-life outcomes and multilevel modeling for more complex relationships of staff outcomes by provinces and LTC home characteristics. RESULTS Data collection and cleaning are complete as of October 2024 (N=2305). Care aides (n=1338), nurses (n=724), allied health providers (n=154), and managers (n=89) from 53 homes make up the sample. Data analysis is ongoing. Initially, individual reports will present descriptive data for each participating LTC home. Concurrent analysis is planned for publication in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS This peer-reviewed research protocol lays the foundation for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of the work environment on the quality of work life of LTC staff in Atlantic Canada. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/66338

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalmedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.007

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→