But at What Cost? Healthcare Utilization of Canadian Carer-Employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregiving plays a crucial role in aging societies by supporting individuals with chronic illnesses, disabilities, or aging-related needs. The unpaid labour provided by caregivers diverts healthcare resources from the formal healthcare system; however, this incurs costs to the caregivers themselves in terms of declines in personal wellbeing. This study explores the relationship between caregiving and healthcare spending for two groups of caregivers: eldercare only and sandwiched. We found that physician visits were the most common resource used by caregivers, at a mean of 3.69 (SD = 4.01) visits over a 6-month period, excluding non-users of this service. This was followed by mental health services (M = 5.86, SD = 7.02), emergency room visits (M = 1.77, SD = 1.38), and hospital admissions (M = 3.61, SD = 8.53). There were no significant differences in healthcare utilization between eldercare and sandwiched caregivers. There were mixed results regarding characteristics associated with greater resource use; however, the hours of weekly caregiving were most consistently associated with greater healthcare utilization, indicating that healthcare use may increase with care burden.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".