Inter-provincial variation in older home care clients and their pathways: a population-based retrospective cohort study in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, publicly-funded home care programs enable older adults to remain and be cared for in their home for as long as possible but they often differ in types of services offered, and the way services are delivered. This paper examines whether these differing approaches to care shape the pathway that home care clients will take. Older adult client pathways refer to trajectories within, and out of, the home care system (e.g., improvement, long term care (LTC) placement, death). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of home care assessment data (RAI-HC was linked with health administrative data, long-term care admissions and vital statistics in Nova Scotia Health (NSH) and Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA). The study cohort consists of clients age 60 + years, admitted to home care between January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013 and up to four years from baseline. Differences in home care service use, client characteristics and their pathways were tested across the two jurisdictions overall, and among the four discharge streams within jurisdictions using t-tests and chi-square tests of significance. RESULTS: NS and WHRA clients were similar in age, sex, and marital status. NS clients had higher levels of need (ADL, cognitive impairment, CHESS) at base line and were more likely discharged to LTC (43% compared to 38% in WRHA). Caregiver distress was a factor correlated with being discharged to LTC. While a third remained as home care clients after 4 years; more than half were no longer in the community - either discharged to LTC placement or death. Such discharges occurred on average at around two years, a relatively short time period. CONCLUSIONS: By following older clients over 4 years, we provide enhanced evidence of client pathways, the characteristics that influence these paths, as well as the length of time to the outcomes. This evidence is central to identification of clients at risk in the community and aids in planning for future home care servicing needs that will allow more older adults to remain living in the community.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".