The Cost of Caring: Out‐Of‐Pocket Expenditures and Financial Hardship Among Canadian Carers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At some point in their lives, nearly half of Canadians aged 15 and older have been caregivers or carers to family members or friends with long-term health, disability or aging-related needs. Many of these carers spend money out-of-pocket on the care-related needs of their family member or friend, and this spending may expose carers to a higher risk of financial hardship. Although the literature on care-related out-of-pocket expenditures (OPE) is growing, we know little about the relationship between financial hardship and OPE, and the changes in financial behaviour that result. Using data from a nationally representative sample of family carers age 45 drawn from Statistics Canada’s 2012 General Social Survey on Caregiving and Care Receiving, we explore the relationship between care-related OPE and financial hardship and the financial behaviors, such as modifying spending, deferred savings, and borrowing, used by carers who report financial hardship. The results from multivariate logistic regression analyses exploring risk factors for financial hardship suggest personal financial planning strategies and public policies to minimize the risk of incurring financial hardship due to care-related OPE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".