We share the care: family caregivers’ experiences of their older relative receiving home support services
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although both family care and home support are considered essential components of home-based health-care, the experiences of family caregivers who have a relative in receipt of home support services are not well understood. Little is known about what aspects of home support services assist family caregivers or hinder them in their caregiving. This study examines family member's experiences of the home support services received by their elderly relatives. Based on a previous Canadian study of contributions in family caregiving, we developed a conceptual model for understanding multiple contributions in caregiving. The present study used this conceptual model to guide the analysis of data from in-depth interviews with family caregivers (N = 52), completed August 2007-April 2008, who have or had an older relative in receipt of home support services in British Columbia, Canada, in the previous 12 months. Verbatim transcripts were read, re-read and independently coded by three members of the research team to identify common themes. Themes relating to direct care (care provided directly to the elderly person) and assistive care (care provided to one caregiver by another) were identified. In discussing the direct care provided by workers, family members emphasised dissatisfaction with instrumental assistance provided by home support workers while also stressing the importance of affective assistance. In commenting about assistive care there were three key themes: caring together, care management, and quality assurance and monitoring. In conclusion, the important role of home support in providing relief for caregivers is highlighted and implications for caregiver policy are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it