Using linked health survey and Census data to understand transitions to instutional care among Canadian seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT ObjectivesWhile existing data sources, such as the 2011 Census, provide an accurate count of who is currently institutionalized, there is a significant gap in terms of our understanding of who is at risk for institutionalization and what the future demand for care will be. The objective of this study is to use linked national health survey, the 2005 Canadian Community health Survey (CCHS), to the 2011 Census to identify factors associated with transitions from private households to alternative living arrangements, specifically long-term care (nursing homes), and retirement homes among Canadians 55 years of age and older. ApproachHierarchical deterministic methods were used to link the 2005 CCHS (n=114,000) to the 2011 Census (n=35 million) using identifying variables common to both data sets (i.e. name, birthdate, sex, postal code, social insurance number). Sex specific multivariate regression models with multiple outcomes were used to assess the impact of a comprehensive set of factors (i.e. demographic, socio-economic, health status, chronic conditions and marital status) available in the CCHS on the likelihood of residing in three possible home environments, relative to living in a private dwelling (PD): long-term care (LTC), retirement homes (RH) or private dwelling with support (PDS) as identified in the 2011 Census. Analyses were adjusted for mortality. ResultsOver 85% of CCHS records were linked to the 2011 Census (n=92,849). Among those 55 years of age and older (n=29,934), approximately 2.0% and 1.6% were living in LTC and RH respectively: an additional 7.2% were living in PDS. Results of the regression analyses, revealed that those with Alzheimer’s disease were at highest risk of transition to LTC (OR=11.7 females; 6.8 males). Losing a spouse was significantly associated with transitions to LTC, RH and PDS for both men and women. Being an immigrant was protective, with immigrant seniors less likely to transition to LTC and RH. Other factors significantly associated with transitions to LTC included low income, poor mental health (women only), and assistance with activities of daily living (meal preparation for women, finances for men). Regional variations were also noted. ConclusionNewly linked health survey and census data provide a unique opportunity to take a comprehensive look at those most at risk for institutionalization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".