Transitions to long-term and residential care among older Canadians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aging of the Canadian population has increased attention on the future need for nursing home beds. Although current projections rely primarily on age and sex, other factors also contribute to the need for long-term care. This study seeks to identify additional factors to age and sex that contribute to Canadians transitioning from living at home to living in a seniors' residence or nursing home. DATA AND METHODS: As part of a larger record linkage project, three cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were linked to the 2011 Census of Population: Cycle 3.1 (2005/2006), Cycle 4.1 (2007/2008), and CCHS-Healthy Aging (2008/2009). The sample was limited to successfully linked CCHS respondents who were aged 60 years or older as of Census Day 2011 (May 10, 2011; n=81,411). Sex-specific generalized multinomial logistic regression models were conducted to examine the association between each respondent's characteristics and dwelling location (private dwelling, private dwelling with additional family, nursing home, or seniors' residence) on Census Day. RESULTS: On Census Day, 1.4% of the study sample were living in a nursing home, 1.2% in a seniors' residence, 7.1% in a private dwelling with additional family, and 90.3% in a private dwelling. Women were more likely than men to be living in a nursing home (1.8% of women vs. 0.9% of men) or seniors' residence (1.7% of women vs. 0.7% of men). Regression models showed that, aside from age, there were increased odds of living in a nursing home or seniors' residence among individuals who lost their spouse or who were not married, who did not own their dwelling, who had poor self-rated health, or who had been diagnosed with dementia. The association of other factors with dwelling place differed according to sex and type of dwelling. DISCUSSION: Although age is strongly associated with living in a nursing home or seniors' residence, other demographic and health factors affect the likelihood of an individual transitioning to an institutional dwelling. Such factors could be considered when planning for the future housing and care needs of the Canadian population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".