Equity in home care use in Canada: a cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian longitudinal study on ageing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although home care is an essential service that enables older adults to age at home, there are concerns that not all populations have equitable access to home care services in Canada. The primary objective of this study is to describe formal home care use in Canada across a broad set of demographic and socioeconomic factors. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of formal home care use among community-dwelling adults aged 45+ using data from the Canadian longitudinal study on ageing (CLSA) at the 3-year post-baseline follow-up (2015-18). We calculated crude prevalences of formal home care use, stratified by functional status, within the following equity stratification factors: sex, gender, income, education, immigration history, rurality, social support and population group. We used logistic regression models with marginal effects to calculate prevalences of formal home care use while further adjusting for factors related to home care need such as functional impairment, chronic conditions, assistive device use and self-reported health. Results: Of 43 115 CLSA participants included, we found that 8.0% used formal home care services in the previous 12 months. Higher levels of functional impairment were consistently associated with greater home care use. Our unadjusted analysis found significant variations in home care use by sex, gender, income, education, immigration history, rurality and social support. After adjusting for factors related to home care need, we found that individuals with lower income, recent immigration and lower education were significantly less likely to use formal home care services, while individuals with less social support were significantly more likely to use formal home care services. Conclusions: This study highlights disparities in home care use in Canada by income, immigration, education and social support. These findings emphasise the importance of developing federal and provincial policies to address barriers and promote equitable access to home care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".