Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Formal home care services (those typically delivered by health care providers or volunteer organizations) are different from informal home care services (given by family, friends or neighbours), and thus represent a partial picture of all home care provided. Home care has been associated with decreased mortality, improved quality of life, and reduced hospitalizations and health care costs. DATA AND METHODS: New data from the annual Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2015/2016 are used to estimate, for the first time, the number and percentage of households in which at least one person of any age received formal home care services in Canada during the previous year. A descriptive analysis of socioeconomic characteristics of households receiving formal home care is presented. RESULTS: An estimated 6.4% of households (881,800) in Canada received formal home care services in the past year, most frequently nursing (46%) and personal/home support services (46%). Households with parents and adult children (age 25 or older), one-person households, and households with lower socioeconomic status were most likely to have received formal home care. Costs were covered by a range of sources. They were paid solely by government (52%), solely out of pocket (27%), solely by insurance (7%), at least partially by insurance and/or government (8%), and by other sources (6%). Households that received home health care services only-particularly nursing services-were more likely to have their costs entirely covered by government, while those that received support services only were more likely to pay out-of-pocket costs. DISCUSSION: This descriptive analysis of household use of formal home care services by socioeconomic characteristics and type of care will help inform health care policies and programs. Future person-level analysis can examine the independent factors associated with home care use.
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 | 0,000 | 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 ».