MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982577239 · doi:10.1080/01621420802022548

Availability and Acceptability of Canadian Home and Community-Based Services: Perspectives of Family Caregivers of Persons with Dementia

2008· article· en· W1982577239 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dorothy Forbes, Maureen Markle‐Reid, Pamela Hawranik, Shelley Peacock, Dawn Kingston, Debra Morgan, S. Henderson, Beverley D. Leipert, L. Jansen

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Services Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaMinistry of Health and Long Term CareUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaThematic analysisFocus groupFamily caregiversGerontologyQualitative researchFlexibility (engineering)Diversity (politics)Aging in placePsychologyNursingMedicineSociologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Thirty-five percent of Canadians over the age of 85 have dementia, and up to 90% of their home care is provided by family and friends. The purpose of this study was to explore the use and satisfaction with home and community-based services for persons with dementia from the perspectives of family caregivers. The study was conducted using an interpretive, descriptive, qualitative approach. Six focus groups (N = 36) and three personal interviews were conducted with rural and urban caregivers in Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, Canada. Using Lubrosky's (1994) Luborsky, M. 1994. “The identification and analysis of themes and patterns.”. In Qualitative Methods in Aging Research., Edited by: Sanker, A. and Gubrium, J. 189–210. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar] thematic analysis, the overarching themes identified were availability and acceptability of services. The findings suggest a need for an integrated continuing care model that includes the person living with dementia and their family caregivers as partners in care, addresses all of the determinants of health, and embraces sensitivity, diversity, flexibility, and supportive services to enhance the availability and acceptability of Canadian home and community-based services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Health Care Services QuarterlySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207