Doctor shopping before and after a visit to a paediatric emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of multiple care providers is known to be associated with poor continuity of care. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of and identify risk factors for doctor shopping by parents of children with common acute illnesses seen in the emergency department (ED) of a children's hospital. SETTING: ED at the Montreal Children's Hospital (MCH), Montreal, Quebec. METHODS: Doctor shopping was defined as visiting three or more different care sites (the MCH ED, other EDs, outpatient clinics or private offices) for a single illness episode, including all visits occurring within successive 72 h periods up to a maximum of 15 days before and after an ED visit from April 1995 to March 1996. Logistic regression was used to compare characteristics of illness episodes with doctor shopping versus those without. RESULTS: Of the total 40,150 visits during the study period, doctor shopping was observed in 18% of the visits. The risk of doctor shopping was positively associated with an initial visit at other EDs (odds ratio [OR] 9.08, 95% CI 7.16 to 11.52), outpatient clinics (OR 4.47, 95% CI 3.71 to 5.37) or private offices (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.96) versus those who visited the MCH ED first. The risk did not differ according to whether a paediatrician versus a general practitioner saw the child during the initial visit (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15). Some diagnoses (the reference category was upper respiratory infection), including urinary tract infection (OR 3.31, 95% CI 2.58 to 4.23) and gastroenteritis (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.88), were associated with an increased risk of doctor shopping, while asthma was associated with a reduced risk (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.86). CONCLUSION: Doctor shopping is common among parents of children with acute illnesses. Parents of children who were seen in the MCH ED first were less likely to doctor shop, perhaps because the parents were more confident about the advice and treatment received. Further research should investigate the underlying reasons for doctor shopping, eg, services other than an ED were not available and parents' perceptions of the quality of health 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".