MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3122960338

Shifting Towards Autonomy: A Continuing Care Model for Canada

2016· article· en· W3122960338 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHealthcare innovation and challenges
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAutonomyPaceHealth careSubsidyMedicineWork (physics)NursingEconomic growthBusinessGerontologyPolitical scienceGeographyEconomics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

For many seniors, their greatest health concern is the ongoing care that many of them will need as their ability to cope with the routine tasks of daily life declines. Due to various chronic health problems or just old age, supportive services for seniors – often referred to as continuing care – encompass a wide range of needs, from help with daily meals in patients’ homes to institutional care for those with major cognitive or physical disabilities. On this score, many Canadians have expressed concerns about affordability and access to care in their desired location. The state of continuing care in Canada is troublesome on a number of fronts, including the rising stress on caregivers, long waits for nursing home beds, and unmet homecare needs. More than one in four Canadians provide care to family or friends, and among this group one in 10 provides more than 30 hours weekly, often with significant disruption to their paid work. It has been estimated that more than 15 percent of all acute-care hospital beds in Canada are filled every day with patients waiting for care in a location outside a hospital, costing provincial governments slightly under $3 billion per year. And although there has been an increase in subsidized care in people’s homes in recent years, the provinces appear to be well behind the international trend in this regard and will struggle to keep pace with rising demand. Canada’s provinces can learn important lessons from the debates and reforms in other developed countries. A number of them have faced the same challenges but have been much more proactive in establishing a framework for supporting greater independence among the elderly. In doing so, they have recognized that shifting more services to the home and community is a key goal. The experience abroad shows several countries, such as France, Germany and recently Australia, have implemented self-directed models of care delivery, boosting patient satisfaction by giving individuals and families a greater say in their care packages. Two of the biggest challenges for governments contemplating more cash-based, self-directed benefits for continuing-care services are impact on government budgets and quality assurance. All countries we studied have, however, managed to overcome these challenges, at least to some degree, through restrictions on the size of the subsidy to those with substantial means or available family help and by establishing oversight in the use of the cash subsidies. In the study, we sketch a provincial continuing care model that would draw on these countries’ experience. Establishing a new comprehensive self-directed model along the lines we propose will require: • an assessment system; • means testing; • a funding mechanism that is based on need but controls government costs; • an oversight system to ensure quality and enforce restrictions on use; and, • establishing who will oversee, coordinate and be accountable for care. The time to adopt new systems of supportive services for the elderly is now – before many more retiring babyboomers start drawing heavily on them.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,926
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,786

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,347
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle