Comparing the health services utilization of long-term-care residents, home-care recipients, and the well elderly.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has typically supported the concern that health services utilization increases with aging. Yet most health services utilization studies have focused on the use of 1 as opposed to all health services, the use of health services over 1 year as opposed to a longer period, and the use of health services during the 1970s or 1980s. Current, comprehensive utilization studies are needed in order to better inform health policy and health services decision-making. This study was designed to compare the health services utilization of 3 groups of seniors: those residing in long-term-care (LTC) facilities, those receiving home care, and those neither institutionalized nor receiving home care. Individual-anonymous and population-based inpatient hospital data, ambulatory care (day surgery, outpatient clinic, and emergency room) data, and physician services data collected by the health ministry of the Canadian province of Alberta over a 2-year period were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistical tests available in the SPSS computer program. With the exception of physician and LTC services, LTC residents were the least likely to use health services. Furthermore, and despite concerns that LTC residents may be stigmatized or rationed with regard to access to tertiary care, the data indicate that LTC residents are not disadvantaged in terms of type or scope of hospital services. These and other findings suggest an appreciation for LTC in managing both the health and the care needs of the oldest seniors. The findings also raise concerns about the adequacy of formal home care and of the health care received by the well elderly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".