Realities of Home Care System for Children with Medical Complexity (CMC): A Qualitative Study of Parent Experiences, Barriers, and Alternative Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children with medical complexity (CMC) need coordinated home care beyond traditional healthcare, and how parents interact with these systems is central to shaping their children’s care pathways. While family-centered care emphasizes collaboration between providers and families, this study examined how parents engage with home care systems and the impact of these interactions on their children’s care pathways. Methods: A descriptive qualitative design was used, with reflexive thematic analysis. Fifteen parents (13 mothers, 2 fathers) were recruited through pediatric community organizations across Ontario, Canada. Virtual interviews, 45 to 90 minutes in length, explored experiences with care coordination, system interactions, and service navigation. Data were analyzed inductively using NVivo software. Results: Three overarching themes were generated: (1) systemic barriers in pediatric home care, (2) service delivery and information gaps in home care, and (3) Family-Managed Home Care (FMHC) alternative pathways and trade-offs. Limited funding led to inadequate staffing and poor care quality, resulting in some children losing developmental progress. Parents feared that speaking up about care issues could result in losing services. Information gaps and geographic disparities created systematic inequities. FMHC offered enhanced control but transferred substantial administrative burdens to families, creating new forms of stratification based on administrative capacity. Conclusion: Current home care systems for CMC in Ontario create structural barriers that limit family engagement and shift responsibilities onto families, potentially deepening inequities. Meaningful reform requires engaging families as partners in system design and policy development rather than relying on individual-level solutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".