The effect of informal caregiver support on utilization of acute health services among home care clients: a prospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency department visits and hospitalizations (EDVH) place a large burden on patients and the health care system. The presence of informal caregivers may be beneficial for reducing EDVH among patients with specific diagnoses. Our objective was to determine whether the presence of an informal caregiver was associated with the occurrence of an EDVH among clients 50 years of age or older. METHODS: Using a database accessed through the Toronto Central Community Care Access Centre (CCAC), we identified 479 adults over 50 years of age who received home care in Toronto, Canada. Exposure variables were extracted from the interRAI health assessment form completed at the time of admission to the CCAC. EDVH data were linked to provincial records through the CCAC database. Data on emergency room visits were included for up to 6 months after time of admission to home care. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with the occurrence of an EDVH. RESULTS: Approximately half of all clients had an EDVH within 180 days of admission to CCAC home care. No significant association was found between the presence of an informal caregiver and the occurrence of an EDVH. Significant factors associated with an EDVH included: Participants having a poor perception of their health (adjusted OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.11-2.56), severe cardiac disorders (adjusted OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.04-2.29), and pulmonary diseases (adjusted OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.16-3.47). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an informal caregiver was not significantly associated with the occurrence of an EDVH. Future research should examine the potential associations between length of hospital stay or quality of life and the presence of an informal caregiver. In general, our work contributes to a growing body of literature that is increasingly concerned with the health of our aging population, and more specifically, health service use by elderly patients, which may have implications for health care providers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".