What Explains Interest to Promote Relationship-Centred Mealtimes in Care Homes? A Secondary Analysis of Cross-Sectional Survey Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationship-centred mealtimes can support care home residents, who are at high risk for loneliness. However, care home staff do not consistently promote relationship-centred mealtimes. This secondary analysis examined the impact of factors (selected based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour) upon care home staff interest in making mealtimes more relationship-centred. Data were from a cross-sectional, quantitative survey of 670 care home staff from North America. We used multivariable logistic regression to test hypotheses. The model was statistically significant, and explained 13 per cent of the variance in staff members' interest in making mealtimes more relationship-centred. Respondents who were more satisfied with current mealtime practices, had used collaborative change strategies in the past, and who perceived organizational support for relationship-centred care were more likely to have interest in making mealtimes more relationship-centred. These are modifiable factors to target in interventions designed to promote care home staff interest in making mealtimes more relationship-centred.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".