Determinants of Emergency Department Visits by Older Adults: A Systematic Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the determinants of hospital emergency department (ED) visits by elders, using a modification of the Andersen behavioral model of health services, adapted to explain ED utilization. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified through MEDLINE and a search of reference lists and personal files. Studies of populations aged 65 or older in which ED visits were a study outcome were included if they were: original, not restricted to a particular medical condition, written in English or French, and investigated one or more determinants. Data were abstracted and checked by two authors using a standard protocol. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (reported in 15 articles) were reviewed, 10 community-based and four using clinical samples. Among ten studies that measured multiple determinants, determinants reported from multivariate analyses included measures of need (perceived and evaluated health status, prior utilization), predisposing factors (health beliefs and sociodemographic variables), and enabling factors (physician availability, regular source of care, family resources, geographical access to services). CONCLUSIONS: Need is usually the primary determinant of ED visits in older people. Controlling for need, predisposing and enabling factors that promote access to primary medical care are associated with reduced ED utilization.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it