Factors influencing the utilization of community long-term care services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community Long-Term Care Services (CLTCS) are intended to support \ncaregivers and delay institutionalization of care recipients. Evidence suggests CLTCS are \nunder-utilized in Newfoundland by caregivers of people with dementia. Objectives: To \nexplore the meaning of caregiving among caregivers in Newfoundland; to investigate a \nrange of factors that may influence CLTCS utilization; and to assess CLTCS capacity in \nthe region. Methods: Survey and interview of a sample of caregivers from the Canadian \nStudy on Health and Aging, and a historical survey of homecare agencies. Results: \nDespite an apparent need for services, caregivers did not want CLTCS delivered in the \nhome by strangers. Caregivers were more accepting of out-of-home services. Too few \nhomecare agencies responded to the survey to carry out an analysis. Conclusions: The \nmeaning of caregiving for caregivers affects the acceptability and utilization of CLTCS. \nCurrently used quantitative instruments may benefit from supplementary qualitative data.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".