In A California Program, Quality And Utilization Reports On Reproductive Health Services Spurred Providers To Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of performance indicators has the potential to improve service quality and avert costs, yet such indicators have typically not been used to assess family planning and reproductive health services. An exception is California's Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment) Program, a statewide family planning and reproductive health services program. Our study assessed whether the behavior of providers participating in this program was influenced by performance reports that used both quality improvement and utilization management indicators. We examined three indicators in each category from 2005 to 2009 and found that change occurred in five of six indicators among private providers and in three of six indicators among public providers. Chlamydia screening rates in women age twenty-five and younger, for example, increased significantly among both private and public providers. Despite the challenges enumerated in this article, we conclude that the methodology used in the program could serve as a starting point for the development of a uniform set of provider-focused reproductive health quality and utilization reports that could be instituted by state family planning programs, state Medicaid programs and health plans, and other health care delivery systems.
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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".