Using Administrative Data to Measure Ambulatory Mental Health Service Provision in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the accuracy of administrative data for identifying mental health service provision in primary care. STUDY DESIGN: This was a chart abstraction study measuring agreement between billing data and clinical data on the binary variable "mental health visit." Data were collected from the charts and billing records of 5 academic family practice clinics in Toronto, Ontario (1999 to 2000). Billing claims (n = 952) were selected from the billings for all visits by a stratified random sampling technique. A blinded data abstractor reviewed the clinical charts and assigned diagnostic codes for each patient visit associated with the selected claims. Any visit with at least 1 abstracted mental health diagnostic code was defined as a mental health visit. The test characteristics of 4 administrative measures of mental health service provision, based on different combinations of billing codes, were calculated. RESULTS: The accuracy of the administrative data was 86.8% when compared with clinical data. The sensitivity of the 4 administrative measures ranged from 22.3% to 80.7%. The specificity ranged from 97.0% to 99.5%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to establish the performance of administrative data in measuring mental health service provision in a primary care setting. In our setting, broadly defined administrative measures of mental health have excellent specificity and adequate sensitivity for exploring and understanding mental health service 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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".