Search

As utilization of home care increases across Canada, questions are emerging concerning the extent to which home care expenses, many of which are not publicly covered, are borne by unpaid caregivers of home care recipients. In this systematic review, we review English-language literature published between 2001 and 2022 exploring the magnitude and sources of home care costs incurred by unpaid caregivers in Canada. Of particular interest were empirical, cost-of-illness studies that describe the implications of these costs across domains of financial risk, including caregivers' income level, employment status, and personal health. Following the screening of 492 studies derived across 6 databases (OVID Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, EconLit, and EMBASE), 24 studies were included in this review. Overall, few studies describe how home care expenses incurred by unpaid caregivers contribute to their financial risk. While some studies characterize the direct costs of caregiving incurred by caregivers, including out-of-pocket expenditure on transportation to medical appointments, respite care, home renovations, supplemental housekeeping, and prescription medications, limited studies attempt to estimate the magnitude of these expenses. Concerning financial risk, the literature is chiefly concerned with indirect costs of caregiving, including consequences on caregivers' employment (foregone wages). Findings from this literature review suggest further work is needed in Canadian context to document costs associated with unpaid home care provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As health service delivery shifts from institutions to the home, greater care responsibilities are being imposed on unpaid caregivers. However, gaps remain concerning how these responsibilities are contributing to caregivers' financial risk. This study describes results from an online survey conducted in late-2020 in Ontario, Canada, about the financial risks of unpaid, homebased caregiving throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among 190 caregivers, salient findings include difficulties paying for care expenses after the pandemic was declared than before (P =.002); more caregivers retiring or becoming unemployed during the pandemic than before (P =.013); and a significant relationship between paying out-of-pocket for a home care worker and experiencing a decrease in the availability of such support during the pandemic (P =.029). Overall, the financial stressors of caregiving during the pandemic contributed negatively to caregivers' mental health, with 64.2% noting could be partly offset by greater government and employment-based assistance in managing care expenses and productivity losses. Findings from this study will better inform policies that aim to protect unpaid caregivers from financial risk in pandemic recovery efforts and beyond. Results may also be useful in other welfare states where unpaid caregivers provide the majority of home care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Population-based surveys conducted by governments inform strategies concerning emergent areas of policy interest. One such area is unpaid caregiving in the context of an aging population. In the Canadian and global contexts, research suggests a need for public financial support to mitigate financial risks of caregiving. In this document analysis, we reviewed 17 federal surveys since 2005 to understand how caregiving-related information is captured. We found that caregiving-related questions were largely derived from two surveys, the General Social Survey and the Canadian Community Health Survey. However, gaps exist concerning questions related to estimates of private care expenditure, and the impacts of older adult caregiving across domains of financial risk (income, productivity, and healthcare utilization). Addressing these gaps, either through revising existing surveys or a new national survey on unpaid caregiving, may improve meaningful assessments about risks and impacts of caregiving, which may better inform public strategies that offset these risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As in many health care systems, some Canadian jurisdictions have begun shifting away from global hospital budgets. Payment for episodes of care has begun to be implemented. Starting in 2012, the Province of Ontario implemented hospital funding reforms comprising three elements: Global Budgets; Health Based Allocation Method (HBAM); and Quality-Based Procedures (QBP). This evaluation focuses on implementation of QBPs, a procedure/diagnosis-specific funding approach involving a pre-set price per episode of care coupled with best practice clinical pathways. We examined whether or not there was consensus in understanding of the program theory underpinning QBPs and how this may have influenced full and effective implementation of this innovative funding model. Methods: We undertook a formative evaluation of QBP implementation. We used an embedded case study method and in-depth, one-on-one, semi-structured, telephone interviews with key informants at three levels of the health care system: Designers (those who designed the QBP policy); Adoption Supporters (organizations and individuals supporting adoption of QBPs); and Hospital Implementers (those responsible for QBP implementation in hospitals). Thematic analysis involved an inductive approach, incorporating Framework analysis to generate descriptive and explanatory themes that emerged from the data. Results: Five main findings emerged from our research: (1) Unbeknownst to most key informants, there was neither consistency nor clarity over time among QBP designers in their understanding of the original goal(s) for hospital funding reform; (2) Prior to implementation, the intended hospital funding mechanism transitioned from ABF to QBPs, but most key informants were either unaware of the transition or believe it was intentional; (3) Perception of the primary goal(s) of the policy reform continues to vary within and across all levels of key informants; (4) Four years into implementation, the QBP funding mechanism remains misunderstood; and (5) Ongoing differences in understanding of QBP goals and funding mechanism have created challenges with implementation and difficulties in measuring success. Conclusions: Policy drift and policy layering affected both the goal and the mechanism of action of hospital funding reform. Lack of early specification in both policy goals and hospital funding mechanism exposed the reform to reactive changes that did not reflect initial intentions. Several challenges further exacerbated implementation of complex hospital funding reforms, including a prolonged implementation schedule, turnover of key staff, and inconsistent messaging over time. These factors altered the trajectory of the hospital funding reforms and created confusion amongst those responsible for implementation. Enacting changes to hospital funding policy through a process that is transparent, collaborative, and intentional may increase the likelihood of achieving intended effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the approval of two COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, many people feel a sense of relief, as hope is on the horizon. However, only about 75% of people in Canada plan to receive one of the vaccines. Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine the reasons why people in Canada feel hesitant toward receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: We screened 3915 tweets from public Twitter profiles in Canada by using the search words "vaccine" and "COVID." The tweets that met the inclusion criteria (ie, those about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy) were coded via content analysis. Codes were then organized into themes and interpreted by using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: Overall, 605 tweets were identified as those about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy stemmed from the following themes: concerns over safety, suspicion about political or economic forces driving the COVID-19 pandemic or vaccine development, a lack of knowledge about the vaccine, antivaccine or confusing messages from authority figures, and a lack of legal liability from vaccine companies. This study also examined mistrust toward the medical industry not due to hesitancy, but due to the legacy of communities marginalized by health care institutions. These themes were categorized into the following five Theoretical Domains Framework constructs: knowledge, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, social influence, and emotion. Conclusions: With the World Health Organization stating that one of the worst threats to global health is vaccine hesitancy, it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of the reasons behind this reluctance. By using a behavioral science framework, this study adds to the emerging knowledge about vaccine hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 vaccines by analyzing public discourse in tweets in real time. Health care leaders and clinicians may use this knowledge to develop public health interventions that are responsive to the concerns of people who are hesitant to receive vaccines. J Med Internet Res 2021;23(4):e26874 doi:10.2196/26874 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]