Accessing and Using Formal Health and Social Services : Experiences of Caregivers of Community-Dwelling Stroke Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stroke caregivers are significantly and negatively impacted by their caregiving role, particularly from a psychosocial perspective. The negative effects of caregiving may persist with time despite stable stroke survivor health suggesting the need for focused caregiver supports. However, little is known about caregivers use and access of publicly funded health and social support services. Purpose: To increase understanding of: (a) stroke caregiversu2019 experience in accessing and using publicly funded health and social support services; and (b) the gaps in health and social support services from the perspectives of stroke caregivers and health professionals. Methods: A qualitative study guided by interpretive description. In-depth interviews were conducted with caregivers of community dwelling adults who have experienced a stroke in the past five years, and health professionals who provide support to caregivers and stroke survivors in Ontario. Results: Interviews were conducted with 22 stroke caregivers and 18 health professionals. Key themes include: (a) caregivers encounter substantial costs when accessing supports (b) the existing formal health and social services are not meeting the needs of caregivers, (c) trust in the quality and suitability of supports strongly impacts caregiversu2019 decision to use services, (d) and the impact of stroke on caregiversu2019 social functioning is underestimated. Conclusion: Caregivers of stroke survivors experience ongoing challenges in accessing and using formal health and social support services. These challenges could be addressed by increasing access and availability of subsidized community-based supports such as respite, psychosocial counselling and peer-based mentoring tailored to meet the needs of stroke caregivers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".