MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hospitalisation rates for ambulatory care sensitive conditions for persons with and without an intellectual disability‐a population perspective

2010· article· en· W1939267359 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityManitoba HealthUniversity of ManitobaCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAmbulatoryMedicineAmbulatory carePopulationConfidence intervalResidenceDemographyIntellectual disabilityPediatricsGerontologyPsychiatryHealth careEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that persons with an intellectual disability (ID) face barriers to primary care; however, this has not been extensively studied at the population level. Rates of hospitalisation for ambulatory care sensitive conditions are used as an indicator of access to, and quality of, primary care. The objective of the study was to compare hospitalisation rates for ambulatory care sensitive conditions between persons with and without an ID in a publicly insured population. METHODS: Persons with an ID were identified among the general population of a Canadian province between 1999 and 2003. Using a list of conditions applicable to persons with an ID, rates of hospitalisations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions for persons with and without an ID were calculated and compared. Regression models were used to adjust for age, sex and place of residence. Hospitalisation rates for specific conditions were also compared, controlling for differences in disease prevalence where possible. RESULTS: Persons with an ID were consistently hospitalised for ambulatory care sensitive conditions at a higher rate than persons without an ID. Between 1999 and 2003 the adjusted rate ratio (RR) was 6.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.6, 6.7]. Rate ratios were highest when comparing persons with, to persons without, an ID between the ages of 30-39 (RR = 13.1; 95% CI = 10.6, 16.2) and among urban area dwellers (RR = 7.0; 95% CI = 6.2, 7.9). Hospitalisation rates for epilepsy and schizophrenic disorders were, respectively, 54 and 15 times higher for persons with compared with persons without an ID. Rate ratios for diabetes and asthma remained significant after controlling for the population prevalence of these diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The large discrepancy in rates of hospitalisation between persons with and without an ID is an indicator of inadequate primary care for this vulnerable population. Decreasing the number of ambulatory care sensitive condition hospitalisations through specialised outpatient programmes for persons with an ID would potentially lead to better health, improved quality of life and cost savings. Future research should include potentially important factors such as disease severity, socio-economic variables and measures of health service organisation in the analysis. International comparisons of ambulatory care sensitive condition hospitalisation rates could point to the benefits and limitations of the health service policy directions adopted by different countries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it