The meaning of home care to older clients and their spouses : an ethnographic inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This ethnographic study sought to understand the experience of receiving home care from the perspective ofolder physically impaired individuals who were cognitively aware and tlieir caregiving spouses.Separate face-to-face semi-structured irterviews were caÛied out with each spouse from nine couples to address the followìng research question: what does receiving care fron a formal care provider mean to older care recipients and to their spouses?This question encompasses several other questions: How does each spouse view the experience ofreceiving home care?what changes have each spouse been experiencing in daily life since first receiving home care?what changes, if any, have each spouse been experiencing in the marriage?How is each spouse deaÌing with any changes?Thematic analyses of the interviews revealed three themes each for Care Receivers (I.dependence, Quality ofCare, and Continuity) and Caregiving Spouses (Reliel Continuity, and Quality ofCare).Even though both participant groups experienced home care differently, these themes all connect to a centralizing theme of Security.Give'the absence ofresearch on this particular question, this study adds to the caregiving literature on older caregiving couples and on home care, and may provide direction for future research exploring this experience.Implications of this research include a deeper understanding of the issues and concems experienced by older couples as they receive fomal care seruices in their homes.This infonlation may also help home care workers understand the changes and adjustments the clients and their spouses are experiencing when they begin to receive 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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".