PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES SYSTEM: THE DISENCHANTMENT OF ISOLATED SENIOR CAREGIVERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Social isolation is one of the negative consequences associated with caregiving and is experienced by approximately 20% of Canadian family caregivers. Being in a public health and social services system, Canadian caregivers should normally turn to their local community service centres (CLSC) to access formal services and feel less isolated. However, studies have shown that satisfaction is low regarding accessibility and continuity of formal support services. In an effort to develop interventions that meet the needs of isolated senior caregivers, the purpose of this exploratory descriptive qualitative study was to identify challenges encountered in accessing and utilizing formal supports within the public health and social services system in Canada. Nineteen isolated senior caregivers participated in seven focus groups. Data analysis was performed using the Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014) approach. Results showed that isolated caregivers do not know where to get information about existing services within the formal system. Once services are found, waiting lists are linked to unbearable delays. Some caregivers are actually redirected to private services, if they can afford it. Isolated caregivers also criticize the unpredictability of the system as they face relentless changes of care providers, inadequate services and sometimes unwarranted cancellations or terminations. In addition, they find formal services lacking human sensitivity. Many of them come to the conclusion that formal services are not worthwhile and exclude themselves from the formal system. This research demonstrated that the health and social services system can actually contribute to the social isolation of senior caregivers longing for support.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".