Capturing Potential Interventions for the Empowerment of Older People and Informal Caregivers in Transitional Care Decision‐Making: A Qualitative Study Using Focus Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To capture older people's, informal caregivers' and health professionals' ideas on potential interventions for empowering older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative design was adopted. METHODS: The study was conducted between February and May 2022 in the region of Flanders, Belgium, as part of the TRANS-SENIOR consortium's collaborative research. Data were collected using focus groups, including older people, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals involved in any physical relocation of the older person across home, hospital or nursing home settings. Thematic data analysis was performed based on Braun and Clarke's six-step method. RESULTS: A total of 40 people participated in the focus groups. Four main themes were identified, which describe ideas on how to empower older people and informal caregivers in transitional care: Providing clear and timely information, preparing people for what is to come, person-centredness and providing professional and peer support for informal caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare (professionals) should facilitate older people's and informal caregivers' empowerment in transitional care decision-making by setting them at the core and inception of the decision-making process. While informal caregivers support their loved ones in decision-making processes, they should also be supported and monitored for burdensome issues. IMPLICATIONS TO PATIENT CARE: Multicomponent, well-planned and personalised interventions are needed to empower older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making. The ideas raised by all stakeholders who participated in this study can inform these interventions. REPORTING METHOD: Adhered to consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Organisations advocating for the interests of older people and informal caregivers played a pivotal role in shaping the TRANS SENIOR project. Furthermore, the study benefitted from the collaborative input of AGE Platform Europe, which amplified the voices and representation of older people during the project design phase.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".