Comparative Efficiency Assessment of Primary Care Models Using Data Envelopment Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares the productive efficiencies of four models of primary care service delivery in Ontario, Canada, using the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method. Particular care is taken to include quality of service as part of our output measure. The influence of the delivery model on productive efficiency is disentangled from patient characteristics using regression analysis. Significant differences are found in the efficiency scores across models and within each model. In general, the fee-for-service arrangement ranks the highest and the community-health-centre model the lowest in efficiency scoring. The reliance of our input measures on costs and number of patients, clearly favours the fee-for-service model. Patient characteristics contribute little to explaining differences in the efficiency ranking across the models. / Cet article compare l’efficience productive dans quatre modèles de prestation de soins primaires en Ontario, au Canada, en utilisant la méthodologie du DEA (Data Envelopement Analysis). Une attention particulière a été portée sur l’inclusion la qualité du service de soin santé dans la mesure de l’extrant (output). L'influence du modèle de prestation sur l'efficience productive a été séparée des caractéristiques du patient en utilisant une analyse de régression. Des différences significatives ont été trouvées dans l'efficience entre modèles et à l’intérieur de chaque modèle. En général, les arrangements avec services-payants arrivent en tête, alors que les modèles de centre de santé communautaire performent le moins en termes d’efficience. Le recours au coût et au nombre de patients comme mesure de l’intrant est nettement favorable au modèle avec services-payants. Les caractéristiques du patient contribuent peu à expliquer les différences dans le classement de l'efficience entre les modèles.
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 | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".