An evaluation study of caregiver perceptions of the Ontario’s Health Links program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2012, the Ontario government launched Health Links (HL), which was designed to integrate care for patients with multimorbidity and complex needs who are high users of health services. This study evaluated perceptions of family and friend caregivers of patients enrolled in the HL program. Research questions included: What are (a) characteristics of caregivers of patients enrolled in HL (b) caregivers' perceptions of the program in relation to HL's guiding principles (patient and family-centred care, accessibility, coordination of services, and continuity of care and care provider) and (c) caregivers' perceptions of the impact of HL on themselves and their care recipient? METHODS: This study involved a survey and qualitative, semi-structured interviews. HL guiding principles (patient and family-centered care, accessibility, coordination of services, and continuity) guided the analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven surveys and 16 qualitative interviews were completed. Caregivers reported high levels of strain [Modified Caregiver Strain Index (MCSI) 15.5 (SD 7.03)], mild anxiety [Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD 7), 9.6 (SD 6.64)] and depression [Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D 10), 11.9 (SD 8.72)]. Regarding the guiding principles, most caregivers had a copy of the HL patient's care plan, although some caregivers noted that their needs were not included in the plan, nor were they asked for input. Caregivers found the program's home and phone visits accessible. Despite minimum wait times for community-based services, other access barriers persisted, (i.e., out-of-pocket costs). HL provided well-coordinated patient services, although some perceived that there was poor team communication. Caregiver perceptions varied on the quality of care provided. Provider continuity provided caregiver relief and patient support: A lack of continuity was related to changes in care coordinators and weekend staff and attrition. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of HL patients appreciated patient- and family-centred, accessible, consistent, coordinated and team-based approaches in care. Providers and decision-makers are urged to ensure that programs aimed at high system users address these core concepts while addressing caregivers' needs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".