ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Models of publicly funded home care for community-dwelling older adults across six high-income health systems: a scoping review.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublicly funded home care is pivotal in supporting ageing in place across high-income health systems. Home care delivery models vary in funding, governance, and service delivery. The scope, distribution, and comparability of evaluation evidence is limited.
objectiveTo map and characterise models of publicly funded home care for community-dwelling older adults across six high-income countries: Canada, England, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand, and to synthesise available evaluation evidence related to model characteristics, quality, patient and family satisfaction, integration with health and social care, and equity-relevant considerations.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology and reported following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from 2005 onwards, alongside targeted grey literature searches. Data meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted and synthesised using qualitative content analysis. An equity lens was applied using the PROGRESS-Plus framework, and SAGER guidelines.
resultsNineteen sources were included, comprising 14 peer-reviewed studies and five grey literature documents. Five models of publicly funded home care were identified: (1) provincially/territorially organized home care in Canada, where models vary by jurisdiction and level of integration; (2) the National Home Care Packages Program in Australia organized around consumer directed care; (3) the Universal Welfare Model managed municipally in Denmark and Sweden; (4) Cash for Care/Direct Payments in England; and (5) nationally framed Home and Community Support Services in New Zealand. Characteristics most common across models were public funding and professional as well as support services. Across models, evaluation evidence was unevenly distributed and largely descriptive, with relational aspects of care and workforce conditions prominent in reported experiences, and equity-relevant characteristics inconsistently reported.
conclusionsThis scoping review charts the models of publicly funded home care across six high-income countries and identifies gaps in the evidence. The findings underscore the need for consistent and comparative evaluation of home care models as population ageing and policy attention to integrated people-centred care intensifies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.