MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078845015 · doi:10.1300/j027v25n03_10

Involvement of Informal and Formal Service Providers: Meeting the Home Care Needs of Older Adults with Severe Functional Impairments

2006· article· en· W2078845015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hong Li

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Services Quarterly · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingMedicaidLong-term careGerontologyService providerMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Service (business)NursingPhysical therapyHealth careBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines informal and formal service providers' involvement in each activity of daily living (ADL) of older adults with severe functional impairments and the older adults' unmet needs for ADL assistance. In addition, this study examines the relationship between the involvement of informal and formal service providers and unmet needs for ADL assistance. Using the data from the 1999 National Long- Term Care Survey, the study included 275 older adults, who experienced ADL impairments and received assistance. This study found that nearly a quarter of the older adults reported unmet needs for ADL assistance. This study also found that the involvement of informal and formal service providers was not significantly related to unmet needs. However, the factors, including the older adult's functional status, levels of assistance received, and Medicaid enrollment, were significantly related to unmet needs included. Practice implications from these study findings for home care service providers are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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