Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Directly funded (DF) home care, also referred to as direct payments or cash-for care, gives clients (self-managers) or unpaid caregivers (family-managers) a budget to choose their own home support services. DF research tends to be dominated by the assumption that choice is inherently beneficial, and rarely attends to the circumstances or experiences of family-managers. Using feminist care theory and Mol’s ‘logic of care’ as an analytical lens, this study aims to address this gap through a nuanced approach to the concept of choice in care services. The findings are based on focus group discussions held between June-July 2021 with 32 participants using DF home care in Manitoba, Canada. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted to answer the question “how do DF users experience the tensions of choice, risk and responsibility?” The first theme demonstrates that choice in DF results in high quality care. The second theme illuminates some of the risks involved in exercising choice, particularly when an individual’s responsibility for coordinating formal services is unsupported. The final theme shows that family-managers tend to take on the responsibility of DF not as a first choice but as a last resort after experiencing other care options as substandard and to avoid institutional care for an older adult. We conclude that family-management in DF places new formal responsibilities on informal caregivers, often without support. We recommend reducing private responsibility in the context of DF, and identify four domains where there is potential to enhance choice in professionally-organized home care services.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".