MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416786647 · doi:10.5770/cgj.28.854

Challenges Facing Canadian Long-Term Care Homes and Retirement Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2025· article· en· W4416786647 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Christine Fahim, Ayaat T. Hassan, Keelia Quinn de Launay, Alyson Takaoka, Elikem Togo, Lisa Strifler, Vanessa Bach, Nimitha Paul, Ana Mrazovac, Jessica Firman, Vincenza Gruppuso, Jamie M. Boyd, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geriatrics Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: COVID-19 exposed long-standing systemic challenges experienced by congregate settings and created a crisis for long-term care homes (LTCHs) and retirement homes (RHs). This study explored the pandemic-related challenges LTCHs and RHs faced and the strategies they used to mitigate them. Method: Ninety-one key informant interviews were held with LTCH and RH leadership across 47 homes (33 LTCHs, 14 RHs) in Ontario, Canada from February 2021 to July 2022. Data were analyzed following the framework method. Results: Findings confirmed evidence of three main challenges. First, leaders were challenged to implement infection prevention and control (IPAC) protocols and measures. Second, leaders required supports to facilitate COVID-19 vaccine access and to promote vaccine acceptance. Finally, LTCH/RH staff experienced well-being and mental health challenges in the face of COVID-19 pressures. Despite widespread attention and efforts to support these congregate settings, challenges persisted over one year into the pandemic. Conclusions: Our findings reveal a plethora of strategies implemented by homes, with ranging reports of perceived success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geriatrics JournalSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207