The Determinants of Informal, Formal, and Mixed In-Home Care in the Canadian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study employed the behavioral model of service utilization to assess the impact of social support and other predisposing, enabling, and health need factors on the receipt of informal, formal, and/or combination of both types of in-home care. Method: The study utilized data from the 2008-2009 Canadian Community Health Survey and focused on individuals aged 45 and older with one or more functional limitations ( N = 5,898). Results: A broad array of predisposing and enabling factors influenced the receipt of care both directly and indirectly through health-related needs for care. Different types of support were influential including affectionate support, positive social interaction, and tangible assistance. Discussion: Findings support the utility of the behavioral model of service utilization to examine the determinants of in-home care arrangements. Findings also point to the need to broaden our focus on the importance of support networks beyond their direct involvement in the provision of care itself.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".