Caregiving practices for older persons in Africa: Changing trends and implications for transformative social work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Africa, the caregiving of older adults is primarily provided by the family. However, there have been changes in these traditional caregiving practices due to changing social, economic and health landscapes, requiring a transformative approach to caring for older people in Africa. The AU Policy Framework and Plan Action on Aging/HAI have made recommendations considering the inadequacies of family caregiving. This narrative literature review examined the arguments of scholars within the position of AU/HAI recommendations within the culture of informal care for older people as well as what potential challenges and opportunities arise from the evolving perspectives on caregiving in Africa. The Ubuntu and Relational-Cultural theories were used as a framework for the study. Findings reveal that scholars have justifiably argued for the adaptation of the African perspective on caregiving for older people due to its inadequacy in addressing evolving health, social, and economic factors associated with ageing. Scholars advocate for a paradigm shift towards a more robust and integrative system of care that considers not only the traditional values and familial structures but also aligns with the changing needs of the older population to foster a supportive and effective caregiving environment for older people in Africa. It is recommended that an encompassing social care, policies, and programs should reflect the specific concerns of older women and men such that all people, irrespective of age, can live long and healthy lives.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".