Efficiency and technological change in health care services in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a productivity measure for hospital services in Ontario. Design/methodology/approach The study applied the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI) to assess the efficiency of hospital services in Ontario, Canada, over the period 2003‐2006. The MPI was decomposed into efficiency change and technological change. Efficiency change was further decomposed into pure efficiency change and scale efficiency change. A bootstrapping technique was also used to obtain confidence intervals for the output oriented MPI and its decompositions. Findings By estimating confidence intervals it was found that a large number of hospitals did not achieve significant progress in terms of productivity. By taking geometric means of estimates for all years it was observed that while overall productivity and efficiency of hospitals in Ontario declined during the study period, technological progress increased at a rate of 5.95 percent on average. Practical implications The present study helps to understand the productivity and technological change and change in technical efficiency in this vital sector of the economy, which is important for policy making identifying improvement opportunities in resource allocation. It was observed that Ontario hospitals did not improve the efficiency with which they employed their inputs (i.e. staff and supplies) over the study period; they did achieve gains through application of technologies. Originality/value The paper provides a thorough study on productivity growth of health care services in Ontario using a non‐parametric framework with bootstrapping. It also provides a robust measurement and analysis of the contributions of technology, size of operation and use of inputs to the performance of hospitals in Ontario.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".