Questioning “choice”: A multinational metasynthesis of research on directly funded home‐care programs for older people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many developed contexts, home-care services have been overhauled with the intent of increasing control and flexibility for those using social and health services. This change is associated with providing funds directly to individuals, and sometimes their families and supports, to arrange at home-care assistance with the activities of daily living. Directly funded home-care programs, or "direct funding" (DF), are not value-neutral policy interventions, but complex and politicised tools for the enactment of care in contemporary times. In this qualitative metasynthesis, we consider 47 research articles published between 2009 and 2017 that explore various DF programs for older persons in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States to identify core concepts in the literature. We find that choice emerges as a central concern. We then assess the literature to explore the questions: How does the existing literature conceptualise choice, and the mechanisms through which choice is enhanced, in DF programs for older persons? How is choice, and the benefit of choice to older service users, understood in relevant studies? We argue that the concept of "choice" manifests as a normative goal with presumed benefits among the studies reviewed. Particularly when discussing DF for older people, however, it is essential to consider which mechanisms improve care outcomes, rather than focusing on which mechanisms increase choice writ large. In the case of DF, increased choice comes with increased legal responsibilities and often administrative tasks that many older people and their supports find burdensome. Furthermore, there is no evidence that choice over all elements of one's services is the mechanism that improves care experiences. We conclude by presenting alternative models of understanding care emerging from feminist and other critical scholarship to consider if we are, perhaps, asking the wrong questions about why DF is so often preferred over conventional home-care delivery.
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 | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".