Reform but no change: The case of aging at home policy in Ontario, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: In this article we consider Ontario policy responses to an aging population and highlight lessons learned about the challenges of sustaining policy change in unstable sub-sectors. We consider the case of community based long-term care (LTC) policy in Ontario over the past decade analyzing the trajectory and legacy of what has been referred to as “Aging at Home” strategy.Description of the innovation or study: Aging at Home policies aim to maintain persons as independently as possible, for as long as possible, in their own homes through coordinated access to home and community care (H&CC). This research analyzed the legacy of policy decisions around the care of older persons and considered the implications of historical policy trajectories for this population in Ontario. To inform the discussion, we share results from qualitative interviews conducted with policy experts from across Ontario.Discussion of its impact: In 2007, the Ontario Government announced the implementation of the Aging at Home Strategy with the intention to enable "people to continue leading healthy and independent lives in their own homes". In year two of the Strategy there was a shift away from preventative measures and community capacity building to high needs seniors, targeting reductions in acute utilization. In year three, the shift went further from building capacity in supportive housing and caregiver supports towards specialized geriatric emergency teams and post-acute supports/rehabilitation.Analysis of why the innovation or study ended and assessment of its legacy: Existing theoretical frameworks suggest that historical legacies have led to a great deal of policy stasis. This seems to be the case in the Mainstream sectors where Canadian Medicare still largely includes public funding for hospital and physician services. However, when juxtaposed against the trajectories in marginal subsectors, existing theoretical frameworks seem to lose their explanatory power. Why is it we see such stability in the Mainstream sectors, but such volatility in the Marginal sectors in Ontario?After analyzing 18 semi-structured interviews (conducted as part of a larger CIHR funded iCOACH project) conducted with policy experts, two important lessons emerge about the nature of policy change in these sectors. Firstly, health systems are not monolithic; and secondly, health policy change can be contingent on competing policy agendas in other sub-sectors of health systems.Key Lessons: Sub-sectors within healthcare systems will have divergent political dynamics, institutional arrangements and policy histories. We suggest that existing theoretical frameworks for policy change can be too general to account for important differences.Competing policy agendas in marginalized sectors can be appropriated by competing policy agendas in other prevailing sectors. In the case of Aging at Home, findings suggest it was largely appropriated by the interests of more dominant actors in the Mainstream sector.Conclusion: Ontario's experience with the Strategy has been quintessential, rather than novel; it shifted to expand capacity of institutional care. In redefining the role of the H&CC sector moving forward – as informed by the participants – we need to leverage interests of dominant players, ‘share risk’, and structurally reform funding and delivery of H&CC services.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».