Determinants of Unacceptable Waiting Times for Specialized Services in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Much of the current evidence regarding timely access to healthcare services focuses on the duration of the waiting time as the principal determinant of wait time acceptability. We conducted the first national-level analysis of wait time acceptability in Canada to identify the determinants of unacceptable waits for specialized healthcare services, including selected demographic and socio-economic variables. METHODS: We analyzed data reported by respondents to a national survey on access to healthcare services who accessed specialized services (i.e., specialist visits, non-emergency surgery and selected diagnostic tests) during a 12-month period. We used univariate analyses and weighted logistic regression to examine the relation between wait time acceptability and selected demographic, socio-economic and health status factors for each specialized service. RESULTS: Between 17% and 29% of patients who waited for a specialized service declared that their waiting time was unacceptable. Most individuals reported waiting less than 3 months for their services. Between 10% and 19% of those who waited indicated that waiting for care affected their lives. Results of the logistic regression analyses showed that longer waits and adverse experiences during the waiting period were significantly associated with higher odds of reporting an unacceptable waiting time for all three types of specialized services. The role of socio-economic and demographic factors on wait time acceptability was varied. Individuals with lower education were consistently less likely to consider their waiting times unacceptable. Patients less than 65 years of age were more likely to consider their waiting times unacceptable for specialist visits and diagnostic tests. INTERPRETATION: Our study shows that the primary determinants of waiting time acceptability are the length of the waiting time and the effects of waiting on the patient's life. In addition, some patient characteristics, such as age and education, may play a role, pointing to the potential role of patient expectations in determining the acceptability of waits for specialized services.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".