Home care or long-term care? Setting the balance of care in urban and rural Northwestern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to determine the extent to which community care packages could be provided at a lower cost than facility-based long-term care (LTC) for 864 individuals on the LTC waiting list in urban and rural parts of Northwestern Ontario, Canada. A sequential mixed methods design was used entailing a retrospective chart review, the formation of case vignettes, the creation of community care packages with an 'expert panel' of care managers, the costing of care packages and the calculation of potential diversion rates from LTC. Data collection took place in Northwestern Ontario between the months of March and June 2008. Eight per cent of individuals in the urban area and 50% of individuals from the rural areas could potentially be safely diverted to the community and provided with a community care package at a cost lower than facility-based LTC. There is potential for home and community care to substitute for more costly long-term care, but doing so requires building capacity in this sector, particularly in rural areas, which are currently underserviced. Reconfiguring the 'balance of care' may lead to long-term cost efficiencies for an ageing population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".