MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403619481 · doi:10.1186/s12877-024-05454-8

Social connection in long-term care homes: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators

2024· article· en· W4403619481 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hannah Chapman, Jennifer Bethell, Neha Dewan, Madalena P. Liougas, Gill Livingston, Katherine S. McGilton, Andrew Sommerlad

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity College LondonFondation Brain CanadaAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsQualitative researchQuality of life (healthcare)Thematic analysisMedicineLong-term carePsychological interventionPopulationGerontologySocial supportNursingPsychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social connection is a basic human need and is essential to quality of life. It is associated with better mental and physical health outcomes for long-term care (LTC) home residents and is a key aspect of quality of care and person-centred care. There are considerations for LTC homes that may present obstacles to and opportunities for social connection. It is therefore important to understand what restricts or enables good social connection in LTC homes, to guide better quality care and future interventions in this population. This qualitative study aims to identify barriers and facilitators to social connection for LTC residents. METHODS: We used thematic analysis to describe themes derived from individual and group qualitative interviews from 67 participants (18 residents, 17 staff members and clinicians, 32 family members and friends) recruited from LTC homes in the United Kingdom and Canada. RESULTS: Themes were grouped into four categories: (1) becoming familiar with life in the LTC home to support social connection; (2) physical and virtual access beyond the LTC home as strategies to maintain contact; (3) getting to know residents to deepen relationships; (4) person-centred approaches to build social connection. 'Becoming familiar with life in the LTC home to support social connection' described the benefits of counteracting the institutionalized feel of LTC homes, enabling LTC residents to spend time in meaningful ways, and increasing freedom of mobility around the home. 'Physical and virtual access beyond the LTC home as strategies to maintain contact' related to the benefits of outings, providing support with technology, and involving family and friends in LTC home life. 'Getting to know residents to deepen relationships' related to the benefits of using routine care and interactions as opportunities for social contact, using family and friend knowledge as a resource, and fostering resident relationships. 'Person-centred approaches to build social connection' included considering physical, mental, cognitive, and sensory impairments, accounting for adjustment and sociability, using communal spaces well, and prioritizing psychosocial needs. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies barriers and facilitators to social connection for LTC residents which can be addressed in care policies, staff selection and training, and can inform policies and interventions to build and maintain social connection in LTC homes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT05315960.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207