MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1954768048

Determining use of preventive health care in Ontario: comparison of rates of 3 maneuvers in administrative and survey data.

2009· article· en· W1954768048 on OpenAlexaffabout
Li Wang, X Nie Jason, Ross Upshur

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSocioeconomic statusMammographyDemographyHealth careVaccinationGerontologyEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePopulationBreast cancerCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine rates of influenza vaccination, mammography, and Papanicolaou smear by comparing data obtained from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan administrative database with rates as self-reported in the Canadian Community Health Survey. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data from Statistics Canada's 2000-2001 Canadian Community Health Survey and from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan administrative database for the same period. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Those aged 12 and older who had received influenza vaccination, women aged 35 or older who had had mammograms within the past 2 years, and women aged 18 or older who had had Pap smears within the past 3 years who were surveyed during the Canadian Community Health Survey in 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of influenza vaccination, mammography, and Pap smear in Ontario's 14 Local Health Integration Networks by network, age group, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Rates varied by health network. Analysis by age showed that influenza vaccination rates increased with age and peaked among those 75 and older. Rates of mammography screening increased with age but dropped substantially among those 75 and older. Rates of Pap smear peaked among those 20 to 39 and decreased with increasing age. Rates of mammography and Pap smear increased with rising socioeconomic status, but influenza vaccination rates did not differ substantially by socioeconomic status. Rates for all 3 preventive maneuvers were lower in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan data than in the self-reported Canadian Community Health Survey data. CONCLUSION: There are obstacles to finding out the true rates of preventive health care use in Ontario. We need to ascertain these rates in order to establish a criterion standard for delivery of these services. Development of programs to target specific geographic locations, socioeconomic classes, and high-risk groups are needed to increase the overall use of preventive health services 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207