Lost in transition? Community residential facility staff and stakeholder perspectives on previously incarcerated older adults’ transitions into long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Establishing an effective continuum of care is a pivotal part of providing support for older populations. In contemporary practice; however, a subset of older adults experience delayed entry and/or are denied access to appropriate care. While previously incarcerated older adults often face barriers to accessing health care services to support community reintegration, there has been limited research on their transitions into long-term care. Exploring these transitions, we aim to highlight the challenges of securing long-term care services for previously incarcerated older adults and shed light on the contextual landscape that reinforces the inequitable care of marginalized older populations across the care continuum. METHODS: We performed a case study of a Community Residential Facility (CRF) for previously incarcerated older adults which leverages best practices in transitional care interventions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with CRF staff and community stakeholders to determine the challenges and barriers of this population when reintegrating back into the community. A secondary thematic analysis was conducted to specifically examine the challenges of accessing long-term care. A code manual representing the project themes (e.g., access to care, long-term care, inequitable experiences) was tested and revised, following an iterative collaborative qualitative analysis (ICQA) process. RESULTS: The findings indicate that previously incarcerated older adults experience delayed access and/or are denied entry into long-term care due to stigma and a culture of risk that overshadow the admissions process. These circumstances combined with few available long-term care options and the prominence of complex populations already in long-term care contribute to the inequitable access barriers of previously incarcerated older adults seeking entry into long-term care. CONCLUSIONS: We emphasize the many strengths of utilizing transitional care interventions to support previously incarcerated older adults as they transition into long-term care including: 1) education & training, 2) advocacy, and 3) a shared responsibility of care. On the other hand, we underscore that more work is needed to redress the layered bureaucracy of long-term care admissions processes, the lack of long-term care options and the barriers imposed by restrictive long-term care eligibility criteria that sustain the inequitable care of marginalized older populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".