High Users of Emergency Departments in Quebec Among Patients With Both Schizophrenia and a Substance Use Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study assessed factors associated over time with high use of emergency departments by patients in Quebec who had schizophrenia and a co-occurring substance use disorder. METHODS: The cohort study included 2,921 patients who received a diagnosis of schizophrenia in 2006 and had at least one emergency department visit during fiscal year 2006-2007. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate predictors of high use of emergency departments over time. RESULTS: After adjustment for all covariates, predictors of high use over time were as follows: living in either a university medical region (OR=2.10) or a peripheral medical region (OR=2.10), frequent hospitalization (OR=1.16), and greater number of psychiatric (OR=1.64) or physical comorbidities (OR=1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Because high use of emergency departments is a strong indicator of poor care continuity, identified associated factors could help develop and offer new programs to be deployed in the community to better support these patients with greater needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".