Out-of-Pocket Expenses Related to Aging in Place for Older People Experiencing Frailty: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Supporting older people to live in the community as they experience health and functional changes has become a priority for policy makers, health system leaders and community members, including many older people themselves. Aging-in-place has been promoted as a way to support the sustainability of health care systems and limit health care and societal costs. However, the expenses borne by individuals and caregivers to support older people to age-in-place when experiencing changes in health and functional ability are often not considered in health care literature and policy. We conducted a scoping review using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology to explore the out-of-pocket expenses for people with frailty living in the community. We included research and policy papers on community-dwelling people over 60 and experiencing frailty. Findings about financial out-of-pocket expenses were extracted. A total of 9669 sources were screened by two reviewers and 42 sources were included. The sources were from 17 countries, most from the US, and had various designs, including 14 qualitative designs, 15 cross sectional, 11 other quantitative and 2 policy discussions. The sources most often reported expenses related to home care (16), medication (12), housekeeping (10), transportation (8), and medical equipment (6). Gaps in the body of literature include lack of a consistent measure of out-of-pocket expenses and cost considerations of co-housing programs. The context—including policy, community and personal—was particularly important to the experience of out-of-pocket expenses for people with frailty, and further research is needed to expand on this knowledge.
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 | 0.014 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".