Increased Continuity of Care Associated with Decreased Hospital Care and Emergency Department Visits for Patients with Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the association between continuity of care and emergency room visits/hospital care for patients with asthma. A population-based study was conducted using administrative healthcare datasets obtained from Alberta Health and Wellness, Alberta, Canada. The 4-year study period extended from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 2000, and took place at the Palliser Health Region in Alberta, Canada, which has a population of 88,000 people. A population-based sample of 2774 patients, diagnosed with asthma between ages 5 and 45 with two or more office visits for asthma and who lived in the Palliser Health Region for 2 consecutive years during the study period, was studied. The main outcome measure was the association of continuity of care with hospitalizations and emergency room visits for patients with asthma. Continuity of care was the proportion of total physician visits made to the most frequently visited physician. High continuity of care was associated with a decreased risk of an emergency visit (OR = 0.24: 95% CI 0.19-0.29), number of emergency visits (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.32-0.42), decreased risk of number of hospitalizations (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.54-0.89), and total days in hospital (average difference = 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.95), but not with ever hospitalized. High continuity of care was associated with a 60%-75% reduction in emergency room visits and an approximate 25% reduction in number of hospitalizations in patients with asthma. Interventions to improve continuity of care could have the potential to improve care and reduce cost.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".