Person-Centered Home Care: Exploring Worker-Client Relationships Using an Intersectional and Critical Disability Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More research is needed into how "person-centered care" (PCC) manifests in home care (HC) worker-client relationships. Qualitative data were collected at three time points from twelve HC workers and others to better understand how approaches to care shape the pathways of older adult HC clients with chronic conditions in two Canadian health jurisdictions. This paper uses critical disability and intersectionality frameworks to highlight ways in which PCC enables social and instrumental benefits for workers' and clients. It also exposes difficulties in being flexible and developing interpersonal relationships because of HC policies. Workers also acknowledged risks when trying to prioritize client preferences, sometimes drawing distinctions between reasonable and unreasonable demands. Implications for enhanced training and support for workers around navigating flexibility and boundaries and using a relational approach to PCC are discussed, as are implications for policy-making that protect all parties.
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".