Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Formal home care services (those typically delivered by health care providers or volunteer organizations) are different from informal home care services (given by family, friends or neighbours), and thus represent a partial picture of all home care provided. Home care has been associated with decreased mortality, improved quality of life, and reduced hospitalizations and health care costs. DATA AND METHODS: New data from the annual Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2015/2016 are used to estimate, for the first time, the number and percentage of households in which at least one person of any age received formal home care services in Canada during the previous year. A descriptive analysis of socioeconomic characteristics of households receiving formal home care is presented. RESULTS: An estimated 6.4% of households (881,800) in Canada received formal home care services in the past year, most frequently nursing (46%) and personal/home support services (46%). Households with parents and adult children (age 25 or older), one-person households, and households with lower socioeconomic status were most likely to have received formal home care. Costs were covered by a range of sources. They were paid solely by government (52%), solely out of pocket (27%), solely by insurance (7%), at least partially by insurance and/or government (8%), and by other sources (6%). Households that received home health care services only-particularly nursing services-were more likely to have their costs entirely covered by government, while those that received support services only were more likely to pay out-of-pocket costs. DISCUSSION: This descriptive analysis of household use of formal home care services by socioeconomic characteristics and type of care will help inform health care policies and programs. Future person-level analysis can examine the independent factors associated with home care use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".