Do as I say, not as I do: a survey of public impressions of queue-jumping and preferential access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Canada Health Act legislates that Canadian citizens have access to healthcare that is publicly administered, universal, comprehensive, portable, and accessible (i.e. unimpeded by financial, clinical, or social factors). We surveyed public impressions and practices regarding preferential access to healthcare and queue jumping. METHODS: Households were randomly selected from the Toronto telephone directory. English speakers aged 18 years or older were solicited for a standardized telephone survey. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS and SAS. RESULTS: Fifteen percent (n=101) of 668 solicited were surveyed. Ninety-five percent advocated equal access based on need. Support for queue jumping in the emergency department (ED) was strong for cases of emergency, severe pain, and pediatrics, equivocal for police, and minimal for the homeless, doctors, hospital administrators, and government officials. To improve a position on a waiting list, approximately half surveyed would call a friend who is a doctor, works for a doctor, or is a hospital administrator. Sixteen percent reported having done this. The likelihoods of offering material inducement for preferential access were 30 and 51% for low and high-impact medical scenarios, respectively. The likelihoods of offering nonmaterial inducement were 56 and 71%, respectively. Responses were not associated with sex, occupation, or education. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents expressed support for equal access based on need. Policy and scenario-type questions elicited different responses. Expressed beliefs may vary from personal practice. Clearly defined and enforced policies at the hospital and provincial level might enhance principles of fairness in the ED queue.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".