Understanding Gender-Specific Daily Care Preferences: Topic Modeling Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Daily preferences are a reflection of how adults wish to have their needs and values addressed, contributing to joy and satisfaction in their daily lives. Clinical settings often regard older adults as a uniform group, neglecting the diversity within this population, which results in a shortfall of person-centered care that overlooks their distinct daily care preferences. At the heart of person-centered care lies the imperative to comprehend and integrate these preferences into the care process. Recognizing and addressing gender differences in older adults is critical to customizing care plans, thereby optimizing quality of life and well-being for individuals. This study addresses the need to understand the diverse daily care preferences of adults, particularly among older populations, who represent a growing demographic with unique needs and interests. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify and analyze the key themes and daily care preferences from unstructured adult text narratives with a focus on uncovering gender-specific variations. METHODS: This study used 4350 deidentified, unstructured textual data from MyDirectives (MyDirectives, Inc), an interactive online platform. Advanced topic modeling techniques were used to extract meaningful themes, and gender-specific term frequency and distribution were examined to identify gender differences in these elements. RESULTS: The study sample included 2883 women (mean age 63.02, SD 13.69 years) and 1467 men (mean age 67.07, SD 11.73 years). Our analysis identified six major themes: (1) "entertainment" (12.14%, 528/4350), (2) "music" (10.39%, 452/4350), (3) "personal interests and memories" (38.18%, 1661/4350), (4) "intimate relationships" (14.92%, 649/4350), (5) "natural comforts" (16.18%, 704/4350), and (6) "emotional, cultural, and spiritual foundations" (8.18%, 356/4350). Gender differences were evident: women were more likely to express preferences for "personal interests and memories" (40.7% vs 33.3%), "natural comforts" (18.4% vs 11.9%), and "emotional and spiritual foundations" (9.3% vs 6.1%) than men. Men expressed stronger preferences for "entertainment" (18.1% vs 9.1%) and "music" (16.8% vs 7.2%). Common terms across all participants included "dog," "love," "friends," and "book." Notably, the study revealed significant gender differences in daily care preferences, especially regarding familial relationships and entertainment choices. CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore the importance of recognizing individual daily care preferences in person-centered care, particularly regarding gender. Understanding these preferences is crucial for improving care quality and patient satisfaction, thereby enhancing the overall quality of life for adults receiving care across our health care system.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".