Match between needs and services for participation of older adults receiving home care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the match between needs and services related to participation for frail older adults receiving home care. Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative multiple case study was conducted with 11 triads each involving an elder, a caregiver and a healthcare provider working in a Health and Social Services Centers (HSSCs). Findings – Although HSSCs in Québec are supposed to promote social integration and participation of older adults, services provided to the older adults in this study focused mainly on safety and independence in personal care, dressing, mobility and nutrition, without fully meeting older adults’ needs in these areas. Discrepancies between needs and services may be attributable to the assessment not covering all the dimensions of social participation or accurately identifying older adults’ complex needs; older adults’ and their caregivers’ difficulties identifying their needs and accepting their limitations and the assistance offered; healthcare providers’ limited knowledge and time to comprehensively assess needs and provide services; guidelines restricting the types and quantity of services to be supplied; and limited knowledge of older adults, caregivers and healthcare providers about services and resources available in the community. Originality/value – To improve and maintain older adults’ participation, a more thorough assessment of their participation, especially in social activities, is required, as is greater support for older adults and their families in using available community resources. It is also important to review the services provided by HSSCs and to optimize partnerships with community organizations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".