Care revolutions in the making? A comparison of cash-for-care programmes in four European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes and evaluates cash-for-care programmes for older people in four European countries, namely Home-Care Grants in Ireland, Direct Payments in the United Kingdom (England), Service Vouchers in Finland and Personal Budgets in The Netherlands. The purpose is to raise understanding of the background and reasons for the introduction of cash-for-care programmes and their impact on the countries' care regimes. It is argued that while the motives for introducing cash-for-care programmes in the four countries are similar, namely to promote choice and autonomy, to plug gaps in existing provision, to create jobs, and to promote efficiency, cost savings and domiciliary care, the relative importance of these goals varies. Current cash-for-care programmes have comparatively modest coverage as compared with direct service provision and provide no more than an optional, supplementary source of care in three of the studied countries. Cash-for-care schemes have not radically transformed the care regimes in Finland, The Netherlands or the United Kingdom. In Ireland, however, the restricted availability of alternative forms of formal service provision means that the expansion of cash-for-care might shift care provision significantly towards private provision and financing.
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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".