Does systematically organized care improve outcomes for women with diabetes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether financial reimbursement for a bundle of diabetes care items self-reported by general practitioners (GPs) leads to improved outcomes for women with diabetes. METHODS: Longitudinal cohort study of women in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health aged 45-50 and 70-75 years when recruited in 1996. OUTCOMES: Short Form 36-item (SF-36), Medicare and pharmaceutical benefits costs 2002-2005, uptake of annual cycle of care for diabetes (ACC). RESULTS: Annual cycle of care claims were identified for 23% of 388 mid-age, and 40% of 616 older women with diabetes. ACC was not associated with statistically significantly higher costs in either group. Women for whom the GP had received an ACC fee were more likely to have been overweight, had more GP visits, more medications, and more 'no cost' visits. Unlike older women, mid-age women for whom the GP had received an ACC fee were more likely to have difficulty managing on their income and tended to have worse physical and social function scores prior to the time the ACC was introduced and compared with other women with diabetes continued to have poorer scores at subsequent surveys. There was no association between ACC, co-morbidities or country of birth. Women who developed diabetes after the first survey (incident cases) tended to have better SF-36 health profile scores and lower costs than those who reported diabetes on the first survey (prevalent cases). CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners of women with diabetes, who have more health care encounters and poorer health-related quality of life, have adopted ACC with little impact on the decline in quality of life of the women nor on health care costs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".