Policy choices in dementia care—An exploratory analysis of the <scp>A</scp>lberta continuing care system (<scp>ACCS</scp>) using system dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increase in the incidence of dementia in the aging population and the decrease in the availability of informal caregivers put pressure on continuing care systems to care for a growing number of people with disabilities. Policy changes in the continuing care system need to address this shift in the population structure. One of the most effective tools for assessing policies in complex systems is system dynamics. Nevertheless, this method is underused in continuing care capacity planning. METHODS: A system dynamics model of the Alberta Continuing Care System was developed using stylized data. Sensitivity analyses and policy evaluations were conducted to demonstrate the use of system dynamics modelling in this area of public health planning. We focused our policy exploration on introducing staff/resident benchmarks in both supportive living and long-term care (LTC). RESULTS: The sensitivity analyses presented in this paper help identify leverage points in the system that need to be acknowledged when policy decisions are made. Our policy explorations showed that the deficits of staff increase dramatically when benchmarks are introduced, as expected, but at the end of the simulation period, the difference in deficits of both nurses and health care aids are similar between the 2 scenarios tested. Modifying the benchmarks in LTC only versus in both supportive living and LTC has similar effects on staff deficits in long term, under the assumptions of this particular model. CONCLUSION: The continuing care system dynamics model can be used to test various policy scenarios, allowing decision makers to visualize the effect of a certain policy choice on different system variables and to compare different policy options. Our exploration illustrates the use of system dynamics models for policy making in complex health care systems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".