Does continuity of care with a family physician reduce hospitalizations among older adults?
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
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relation between continuity of primary care and hospitalizations. METHODS: Survey data from a representative sample of older adults aged 67 or over living in the province of Manitoba (n = 1863) were linked to administrative data, which provide complete records of physician visits and hospitalizations. A visit-based measure of continuity of care was derived using a majority-of-care definition, whereby individuals who made 75% of all their visits to family physicians (FPs) to the same FP were classified as having high continuity of care, and those with less than 75% of their visits to the same FP as having low continuity of care. Whether individuals were hospitalized (for either ambulatory care-sensitive conditions or all conditions) was also determined from administrative records. RESULTS: High continuity of care was associated with reduced odds of ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations (adjusted odds ratio = 0.67, confidence interval 0.51-0.90) controlling for demographic and self-reported, health-related measures. It was not related to hospitalizations for all conditions, however. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the importance of continuity of primary care in reducing potentially avoidable hospitalizations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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