Access and Quality of Primary Care for People With Disabilities: A Comparison of Practice Factors
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
This study shows how practice factors, particularly payment type, affect quality and accessibility of primary care for adults with disabilities. The study consisted of: (a) a survey of practice characteristics, including accessibility, accommodations for disabled patients, and payment type; and, (b) a retrospective chart audit for quality of care indicators. The sample consisted of 513 patients within 73 doctors within 47 practices. The study show that there are significant differences between payment types on location, number of physicians and other health professionals, caseloads and patient contacts. Salaried practices scored significantly higher on accessibility and willingness to make accommodations for patients with disabilities. Salary practices scored significantly higher than FFS or capitation for the treatment of diabetes, hypertension and urinary tract infections. Capitation practices scored significantly lower than the other two payment types on preventive care. These findings raise questions regarding the mix of salary to other models of practice, and incentives for ensuring that those with the greatest need receive the best possible primary care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it