Caregiving for older adults with hip fractures: Exploring the perspectives of caregivers, providers and decision-makers in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Caregivers play an important role in providing physical, emotional and social support to individuals with hip fracture. This study sought to explore perceptions of caregiving for older adults with hip fractures by comparing experiences of caregivers, providers and decision-makers. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted both in-person and by telephone with caregivers, providers and decision-makers (n=32) from one rural and one urban hospital selected from two health regions in Ontario, Canada. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were coded descriptively and interpretively, and compared within and across participants types. RESULTS: Three main themes reflected tensions between caregivers and providers/decision-makers. Firstly, differing expectations of caregiver roles were identified. Several caregivers wanted more participation in the decision-making process but often felt excluded, while others expressed feeling stressed due to the expectations placed on them. Conversely, providers and decision-makers often described caregivers needing to strike a balance between providing supportive care while avoiding becoming too involved. Secondly, different expectations of what the healthcare system and providers could provide, with tensions particularly around timing of discharge were noted. Finally, there were differing perceptions of information needs. Providers spoke about the importance of providing education to caregivers and perceived themselves to be providing appropriate education. However, caregivers often described poor communication and not having a clear understanding of next steps and the care plan. CONCLUSION: Managing and tailoring expectations, improving communication (e.g., content, timing) and the consistency of information shared with caregivers from different providers could facilitate more positive caregiving experiences and interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".