Explaining the use and non‐use of community‐based long‐term care services by caregivers of persons with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to synthesize and critically evaluate the current literature that explains the use and non-use of formal community-based long-term care services by caregivers of persons with dementia. There are four issues related to formal community service use by caregivers: reluctance to initiate formal services; under-utilization of available services; delayed utilization of services; and inappropriate utilization of services. Despite substantial research efforts to understand these issues, the reasons for low rates of community service use by this population remains unclear. Common methodological problems and limitations in the underlying theoretical assumptions in the literature, as they relate to caregivers of persons with dementia, have limited the usefulness of the current research for informing practice and policy. A conflict-theory model of decision-making is proposed as an alternative theoretical framework for understanding the particularity and complexity of the decision-making process leading up to the initiation of formal service use. Utilization of formal services is a result of a complex and subjective decision-making process that is unrelated to objective circumstances. The proposed conflict theory model of decision-making can inform policy and practice regarding the development of appropriate, timely and individualized interventions to facilitate the use of formal services by caregivers of persons with dementia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".