Comparing the resident populations of private and public long-term care facilities over a 15-year period: a study from Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In the province of Quebec, Canada, long-term residential care is provided by two types of facility: privately owned facilities in which care is privately financed and delivered and publicly subsidised accredited facilities. There are few comparative data on the residents served by the private and public sectors, and none on whether their respective population has changed over time. Such knowledge would help plan services for older adults who can no longer live at home due to increased disabilities. This study compared (a) the resident populations currently served by private and public facilities and (b) how they have evolved over time. The data come from two cross-sectional studies conducted in 1995–2000 and 2010–2012. In both studies, we randomly selected care settings in which we randomly selected older residents. In total, 451 residents from 145 settings assessed in 1995–2000 were compared to 329 residents from 102 settings assessed in 2010–2012. In both study periods, older adults housed in the private sector had fewer cognitive and functional disabilities than those in public facilities. Between the two study periods, the proportion of residents with severe disabilities decreased in private facilities while it remained over 80 per cent in their public counterparts. Findings indicate that private facilities care today for less-disabled older adults, leaving to public facilities the heavy responsibility of caring for those with more demanding needs. These trends may impact both sectors' ability to deliver proper residential care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".