Extending “Continuity of Care” to include the Contribution of Family Carers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family carers, as a "shadow workforce", are foundational to the day-to-day integration of health service delivery for older family members living with complex health needs. This paper utilises Haggerty's model of continuity of care to explore the contribution of family carers' to the provision of care and support for an older family member's chronic condition within the context of health service delivery. METHODS: We analysed data from interviews of 13 family carers in a case study of primary health care in New Zealand - a Maori Provider Organisation - to determine the alignment of family caregiving with the three levels of continuity of care (relational continuity, informational continuity, and management continuity). RESULTS: We found alignment of family caregiving tasks, responsibilities, and relationships with the three levels of continuity of care. Family carers 1) partnered with providers to extend chronic care to the home; 2) transferred and contributed information from one provider/service to another; 3) supported consistent and flexible management of care. DISCUSSION: The Maori Provider Organisation supported family carer-provider partnership enabled by shared Maori cultural values and social mandate of building family-centred wellbeing. Relational continuity was the most important level of continuity of care; it sets precedence for family carers and providers to establish the other levels - informational and management - continuity of care for their family member cared for. Family carers need to be considered as active partners working alongside responsive primary health care providers and organisation in the implementation of chronic care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".