MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409337704 · doi:10.5334/ijic.9486

A comparative analysis of regulatory models in the assisted living sector in Canada and impacts on integrated care

2025· article· en· W4409337704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krystal Kehoe MacLeod, Laura Jamieson, Peter Tanuseputro

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated careBusinessHealth careEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In Canada, the increasing prevalence of assisted living allows older adults continued independence while offering a shared community and options for help with services like meal preparation, housekeeping, personal and medical care. However, concerns about care quality arises in provinces with a largely for-profit, private pay assisted living model. Regulation of the assisted living sector across Canada is fragmented with regulatory models varying by province. This has created a context of mixed enforcement of assisted living legislation and standards of care. This project compares the different regulatory approaches undertaken by two large Canadian provinces, British Columbia and Ontario. Our aim is to understand why different regulatory models were adopted and how each model influences care planning and care integration for residents receiving care both within their assisted living facility and from the broader health care system. Approach/Methods: This project began with a content analysis of assisted living legislation, regulation, and associated policies in Ontario and British Columbia (n=8) to determine similarities and differences among the two regulatory models. We then used semi-structured interviews (n=12) of policy makers who were involved in, or had knowledge of, the development of the two regulatory methods guided by the ideas, interests, and institutions framework. Our aim was to understand how and why each model was selected and the implications for care integration with a focus on care planning and interprofessional collaboration. Interview data was analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and our interpretation of the contributions of the regulatory approaches in facilitating the integration of care was guided by the OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation. As next steps, our research team will host a deliberative dialogue with key stakeholders to draft policy options to inform future regulatory work in the assisted living sector across Canada. Results: Key themes in our findings so far suggest that despite some overlap in service provision and target population, the two regulatory models studied conceptualised “care” differently leading to different groups of services being subject to regulation. Regulations in British Columbia emphasized resident independence and framed assisted living as a form of supportive housing with little “care” provided. In contrast, Ontario’s regulations focused on the more medicalized care provided in assisted living homes with a particular focus on the care provided by regulated healthcare professionals and an absence of discussion on how care by personal support workers should be monitored. International Learnings: Poor clarity and a lack of consistency in regulating assisted living makes it difficult to understand how care provided in this growing sector fits within the broader health care continuum. The findings from this study provide a better understanding of what types of services and care providers can be regulated most effectively to achieve the aim of ensuring care quality and integration, the effectiveness of regulation as an enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance in a highly privatized sector, and the impact of regulation on care planning and the integration of care across care providers both inside and outside the assisted living sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0150.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated CareSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207