EXPLORING MEALTIME EXPERIENCES OF FAMILIES LIVING WITH DEMENTIA IN LONG-TERM CARE: A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Relationship-centered mealtime interventions improve staff-resident relationships and reduce the risk of malnutrition for residents living in long-term care settings. Less is known about the nature, goals, or outcomes of family-resident relationships at mealtimes, particularly for residents living with dementia. This constructivist grounded theory study aimed to explore what is needed to support meaningful family relationships and engagement at mealtimes with residents living with dementia in long-term care homes. Individual interviews were conducted with 13 family caregivers of people living with dementia in long-term care homes in a Western Canadian province. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using constant-comparison method. Three themes characterized family member participants’ experiences of mealtimes: 1) Changing Ways of Connecting, 2) Nutrition as a Reflection of Dementia Progression, and 3) Adjusting Expectations. Mealtimes are important opportunities for supporting family-resident connection and can facilitate ‘acceptance’ of the illness trajectory in dementia among caregivers. By conceptualizing their mealtime involvement, this study advances understanding of the essentiality of family caregivers for enhancing relationship-centered practices in long-term care settings. By explicating the structure, function, and experience of family involvement in nutritional care, this study addresses the current gap in understanding of how families living with dementia build and preserve relationships through nutritional care and dining.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".