DO PUBLIC HOME CARE CLIENTS “LOSE OUT ON SERVICES” BECAUSE THEY HAVE A FAMILY CAREGIVER?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The public home care (PHC) system in Canada is heavily reliant on family caregivers to enable clients to stay in the community. When caregivers are present, there are concerns formal home care aide (HCA) services are less available. Using data from the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC), we examined caregiver and client characteristics in relation to HCA service amounts. Our cohorts were individuals aged 60+ receiving an initial RAI-HC assessment in 2011-2013, and one subsequent assessment in two provincial jurisdictions: the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (n=5,251) and Nova Scotia Health (n=5291). We measured weekly HCA hours and constructed a predictive model for hours of care controlling for client need. To identify the most underserved client population, we calculated the ratio between predicted to actual received hours of care ascertaining the lowest client quintile. In both jurisdictions, the odds of being underserviced were higher when the client co-resided or had a spouse. Clients living alone at initial intake were least likely to be underserved. Caregiver characteristics increasing the risk of being underserved in Winnipeg included providing IADLs/ADLs support, caring more than 14 hours per week and being unable to continue. Rurality increased risk of underservice in Nova Scotia. These findings contribute to the debate: is PHC a supplement or substitution for family care? PHC as a supplement to family care was more pronounced in Winnipeg and in rural Nova Scotia. Implications for greater equity across regions is explored using an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion lens.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".