Morbidity Experiences and Disability Among Canadian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HEALTH ISSUE: Women are more frequently affected by chronic conditions and disability than men. Although some of these sex differences have been in part attributed to biological susceptibility, social determinants of health and other factors, these gaps have not been fully explained in the current literature. This chapter presents comparisons of hospitalization rates, and the prevalence of chronic conditions and physical disability between Canadian women and men and between various subgroups of women, adjusting for selected risk factors. The Canadian Hospital Morbidity Database (2000-2001) and Canadian Community Health Survey (2000-2001) were used to examine inpatient hospital morbidity, prevalence of chronic conditions and disability. KEY FINDINGS: Hospitalization rates were 20% higher among women than men. This was due to the large number of hospitalizations for pregnancies and childbirth. When "normal" deliveries were excluded, hospitalization rates remained higher among women. Women had slightly lower rates of hospitalizations for ambulatory-care sensitive conditions than men. Prevalence of activity limitation (mild and severe) was higher among women than men, and differences remained after adjusting for age, chronic conditions, socio-economic status, and smoking. Women who reported a disability were less likely than men to be in a partnered relationship, have less tangible social support, and have lower income and employment rates. DATA GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The impact of morbidity and disability on Canadian women is substantial. These results identify areas for interventions among more vulnerable subgroups, and point to the need for further research in the area of risk factors for the prevention of morbidity and disability in the population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".