Health services use by older people with disabilities in Spain: do formal <i>and</i> informal care matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT As people grow older in late life, their need for help with the activities of daily living increases. In Spain, those who need such help constitute about 20 per cent of the population aged 65 or more years. Support may be from formal care, informal care or both, and the type has different consequences for care receivers and their social networks. The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between informal and formal care and the use of health services among older people in Spain. Using a sample of 1,148 respondents aged 65 or more years from the Spanish National Health Survey of 2003, we analysed the association between the sources of care (formal, informal, both, or no care) and the frequency of three types of health-care utilisation: hospitalisation, emergency services and medical consultations. After controlling for sex, age, level of difficulty in the activities of daily living, self-perceived health status, and social class, it was found that older people with disabilities who received neither informal nor formal care were more likely to consult physicians than those who received informal care, but that there were no significant relationships between the type of care and health-services utilisation. The findings provide new information about the consequences of the different types of care of older people with disabilities, and suggest specifically that informal care substitutes for some tasks usually done by health professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".