Exploring the Emergence of Self-Directed Home Care in Ontario: A Qualitative Case Study on <i>Gotcare</i> Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario, the number of older adults (≥65) is expected to increase from 2.4 million in 2017, to 4.6 million by 2046. This substantial increase necessitates a spectrum of care delivery options for older adults who wish to age in their homes. Self-directed care refers to a growing trend in healthcare that provides care recipients with more autonomy to determine what care they need, and how that care should be delivered. This research explores self-directed care in Ontario, Canada, examining an Ontario-based home care agency, Gotcare, as a case study. Semi-structured interviews were completed with eight of Gotcare’s care workers, three of their management team, and 11 home care experts from the healthcare sector. Analysis of these interviews generated four key themes: the circumstances under which self-directed care is an appropriate model for a care recipient; the experiences of home care workers offering self-directed care; the risks of self-directed care; and the opportunities of self-directed care. Findings suggest Gotcare’s model of self-directed home care is responding to a lack of home care options in Ontario, especially in rural and remote regions. The model should be seen as a viable option within the home care sector, but further research should be conducted to ensure that the highest standard of care is delivered to care recipients, and to inform evidence-based policy decisions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".