“Families are a resource, not the enemy”: Canadian family caregivers' experiences of COVID-19 pandemic visitor restrictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian long-term care homes implemented strict visitor restrictions at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to control the spread of the virus among residents. These restrictions extended to family caregivers, a significant provider of in-person physical and social care, preventing them from entering long-term care homes. The purpose of the current study was to explore the experiences and observations of family caregivers during the prolonged visitor restrictions. Fifteen semi-structured, one-on-one interviews were conducted with family caregivers of persons living in long-term care and analysed using a codebook thematic approach. Four themes were identified: a) pandemic policies dismissed family relationships; b) prolonged separation traumatised families; c) family caregivers were resourceful in fulfilling their roles; and d) family caregivers are calling for collaborative change. Our findings reflect how long-term care policies and standards that lacked a family-centred lens resulted in barriers to care and led to serious concerns about the quality of life of residents and serious distress among family caregivers. • Visitor restrictions severed connections between residents and their families. • Residents' cognitive, physical, and mental health decline attributed to isolation. • Family caregivers experienced emotional toll during extended visitor restrictions. • Family caregivers felt helpless, powerless, fearful, and ignored. • Adjusted visitor protocols were ineffective in maintaining family relationships.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".