Whose choice? Self-Determination and the Motivations of Paid Family and Friend Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed method study focuses on the experiences of 383 family and friend caregivers paid to provide personal care services to Medicaid-eligible disabled and elderly through California’s In-Home Supportive Services program. While much discussion about consumer-directed care concerns the selfdetermination of care recipients, this study investigates related caregivers’ perceived choices about assuming these paid caregiver roles. We find that caregiver perception of choice is rooted in a wide array of cultural and gender norms and is quite variable, both within and across cases. Among this ethnically diverse sample of family and friend caregivers, these norms often underlie the motivations for providing paid care and influence the ways in which caregivers subsequently construct and manage their care arrangements. Findings indicate that related caregivers are well positioned to provide culturally appropriate care that is responsive to both care recipient and caregiver preferences. Moreover, the perception of choice in assuming a paid caregiver role has implications for caregiver well-being. Finally, while the availability of public payment was helpful to many, most caregivers describe motives unrelated to financial reward.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".