Alternate housing models for older people with disabilities: their clientele, structures and resources in relation to the quality of and satisfaction with care delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper reports on the study of a subsidy programme that was established in Quebec for alternate housing models (AHMs), which allows private and community organisations to offer housing services within the framework of a partnership with public health-care services. The research objectives were: (a) to compare how facility characteristics and services provided by AHMs and nursing homes (NHs) differ; (b) to examine the personal characteristics of residents living in AHMs; and (c) to compare residents with similar characteristics within AHMs and NHs in terms of unmet needs, quality of care, satisfaction with care and services, and psycho-social adaptation to the residence. A cross-sectional study was undertaken with individually matched groups to assess whether AHMs meet the needs of elders in a way similar to NHs. Overall, residents in both groups had moderate to severe levels of disability and about 60 per cent had mild to severe cognitive problems. While their general features were heterogeneous, the AHMs were more comfortable and homelike than the NHs. The quality of and satisfaction with care was appropriate in both settings, although AHMs performed better. Only one-quarter of residents in both settings, however, evidenced a good level of psycho-social adaptation to their residence. This partnership approach is a good strategy to provide a useful range of housing types in communities that can respond to the needs of elders with moderate to severe disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".