Perceived value of support for older adults coping with multi-morbidity: patient, informal care-giver and family physician perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study investigated the perceived value of informal and formal supports for older adults with multi-morbidity from the perspectives of patients, care-givers and family physicians. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 patients, their informal care-givers and their family physicians in an urban academic family health team in Ontario. Analysis was conducted using a General Inductive Approach to facilitate identification of main themes and build a framework of perceived value of supports. Participant views converged on supports that facilitate patient independence and ease care-giver burden. However, important differences in participant perceptions arose regarding these priorities. Physicians and care-givers valued supports that facilitate health and safety while patients prioritised supports that enable self-efficacy and independence. While formal supports which eased care-giver burden were viewed positively by all members of the triad, many patients also rejected formal supports, citing that informal support from their care-giver was available. Such conflicts between patient, care-giver and physician-perceived value of supports may have important implications for consumer and care-giver willingness to accept formal supports when supports are available. These findings contribute to the broader literature on community-based care by incorporating the perspectives of patients, informal care-givers and family physicians to understand better the barriers and facilitators of uptake of supportive services that contribute to successful ageing at home.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".