The future for Meals on Wheels? Reviewing innovative approaches to meal provision for ageing populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winterton R, Warburton J, Oppenheimer M. The future for Meals on Wheels? Reviewing innovative approaches to meal provision for ageing populations The global phenomenon of population ageing is impacting on how community care is delivered, and a key component of health and social care services for the frail elderly is Meals on Wheels (MOW), a service that has traditionally encompassed delivering meals to older people in their homes. However, aspects of this conceptualisation of MOW are being redefined in order to address challenges posed by tightening global financial contexts, a reliance on volunteers and increasing social isolation among ageing populations. Through a review of the literature and websites from selected countries (UK, USA, Canada, Australia), this article explores and critically evaluates models of MOW delivery addressing these challenges. Findings suggest that MOW services are utilising a marketised approach, moving outside of the home and incorporating diverse volunteer roles. These findings demonstrate how services such as MOW can develop sustainable approaches to service delivery in a contemporary context. Key Practitioner Message: • A review of innovative MOW highlights service models of broader applicability; • Varied delivery models and more diverse volunteer roles appeal to new sources of volunteers; • Research into the development of sustainable models with positive client social outcomes is now required.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".