Developing an evidence-informed model of long-term life care at home for older adults with medical, functional and/or social care needs in Ontario, Canada: a mixed methods study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing challenges within the Canadian healthcare system and reinforced the need for long-term care (LTC) reform to prioritise building an integrated continuum of services to meet the needs of older adults. Almost all Canadians want to live, age and receive care at home, yet funding for home and community-based care and support services is limited and integration with primary care and specialised geriatric services is sparse. Optimisation of existing home and community care services would equip the healthcare system to proactively meet the needs of older Canadians and enhance capacity within the hospital and residential care sectors to facilitate access and reduce wait times for those whose needs are best served in these settings. The aim of this study is to design a model of long-term 'life care' at home (LTlifeC model) to sustainably meet the needs of a greater number of community-dwelling older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An explanatory sequential mixed methods design will be applied across three phases. In the quantitative phase, secondary data analysis will be applied to historical Ontario Home Care data to develop unique groupings of patient needs according to known predictors of residential LTC home admission, and to define unique patient vignettes using dominant care needs. In the qualitative phase, a modified eDelphi process and focus groups will engage community-based clinicians, older adults and family caregivers in the development of needs-based home care packages. The third phase involves triangulation to determine initial model feasibility. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethics clearance from the University of Waterloo Research Ethics Board (ORE #42182). Results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and local, national and international conferences. Other forms of knowledge mobilisation will include webinars, policy briefs and lay summaries to elicit support for implementation and pilot testing phases.
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 | 0.087 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".