Lost in transition? Community residential facility staff and stakeholder perspectives on previously incarcerated older adults’ transitions into long-term care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Establishing an effective continuum of care is a pivotal part of providing support for older populations. In contemporary practice; however, a subset of older adults experience delayed entry and/or are denied access to appropriate care. While previously incarcerated older adults often face barriers to accessing health care services to support community reintegration, there has been limited research on their transitions into long-term care. Exploring these transitions, we aim to highlight the challenges of securing long-term care services for previously incarcerated older adults and shed light on the contextual landscape that reinforces the inequitable care of marginalized older populations across the care continuum. METHODS: We performed a case study of a Community Residential Facility (CRF) for previously incarcerated older adults which leverages best practices in transitional care interventions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with CRF staff and community stakeholders to determine the challenges and barriers of this population when reintegrating back into the community. A secondary thematic analysis was conducted to specifically examine the challenges of accessing long-term care. A code manual representing the project themes (e.g., access to care, long-term care, inequitable experiences) was tested and revised, following an iterative collaborative qualitative analysis (ICQA) process. RESULTS: The findings indicate that previously incarcerated older adults experience delayed access and/or are denied entry into long-term care due to stigma and a culture of risk that overshadow the admissions process. These circumstances combined with few available long-term care options and the prominence of complex populations already in long-term care contribute to the inequitable access barriers of previously incarcerated older adults seeking entry into long-term care. CONCLUSIONS: We emphasize the many strengths of utilizing transitional care interventions to support previously incarcerated older adults as they transition into long-term care including: 1) education & training, 2) advocacy, and 3) a shared responsibility of care. On the other hand, we underscore that more work is needed to redress the layered bureaucracy of long-term care admissions processes, the lack of long-term care options and the barriers imposed by restrictive long-term care eligibility criteria that sustain the inequitable care of marginalized older populations.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».