An evaluation of the effectiveness of engaging Canadian clients as partners in in-home care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory quasi-experimental evaluation assessed the effectiveness of the use of a concrete discussion guide to promote organisation-wide application of a partnering approach to engage older home-care clients with chronic disease/disabilities as care partners. A post-test-only design with an independent pre-test sample was used to compare selected outcomes with those of standard in-home care. The theoretically informed discussion guide portrayed how to go about the process of empowering partnering by using language and open-ended conversational leads to construct partnering, partnering effort and health as a resource for everyday living through social interaction. The discussion guide was provided to all providers for use with all clients in one home-care programme in Ontario, Canada and this organisation was compared with a similar but geographically distanced organisation, also in Ontario. Seven hundred and ninety-one randomly selected clients (mean age = 72.5 years) receiving 3+ months of in-home care for chronic conditions/disabilities from the two home-care programmes between September 2007 and May 2010 completed a researcher-administered questionnaire at either baseline, 1 year or 2 years. Instruments included the Client's Partnering Experience, Health-Promoting Partnering Effort, a modified version of Locus of Authority in Decision-Making, the Medical Outcomes Survey Self-Rated Health Scale, Health and Social Services Utilization and a modified Functional Independence Measure. Analysis of covariance revealed that the use of the concrete discussion guide to promote organisation-wide application of a partnering approach achieved significantly greater client partnering experience and health-promoting partnering effort over time than did the usual approach to in-home-care interactions. Using the discussion guide enhanced client/provider partnering, hence, interdependence, contributing positively to promoting clients' health as a resource for everyday living.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".