Problematizing Dominant Assumptions about Unpaid Support through Exploring Case Study Profiles of Older Home Care Clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite efforts to acknowledge diversity among unpaid caregivers, Canadian research, advocacy, practice, and policy tend to be based in and to reproduce dominant social and institutional expectations and assumptions about who provides unpaid support and why, and what this support looks like. The objective of this analysis is to generate unique insights into unpaid care by exploring the situations of older adult home care clients, who had participated in a larger longitudinal, qualitative research study. In that study, qualitative case study interviews were conducted with twelve home care clients, their identified family or friend caregiver, home care aide, case coordinator, and agency supervisor (129 interviews in total). Case study profiles compiled over time generated deeper information about the availability and capacity of informal sources of support for these clients, which prompted abductive analysis in relation to dominant assumptions typically made about caregivers in research, policy, and practice. Specifically, only one case (participant) had a caregiver whose profile closely matched dominant conceptualizations. In the remaining eleven cases, we found situations wherein: (a) caregivers grappled with physical or mental health challenges limiting their participation in care (sometimes meaning the client is themselves a caregiver, or the caregiver is also receiving home care services); (b) caregivers facing burnout sought to delimit their participation in care; (c) caregivers’ participation was limited by older adults’ reluctance to accept their help; (d) caregivers were largely unavailable, unreliable, or peripheral; or (e) client’s unpaid support networks were diffuse without a clearly central or identifiable “caregiver.” Findings are used to nuance and problematize widely held assumptions about caregivers, particularly their availability and capacity. Discussion highlights the need for research, policy, and programs related to unpaid caregiving to better reflect the lived realities of this support for older adults and often overlooked sources of diversity in caregiver circumstances and roles.
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 | 0.045 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".