MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self‐Reported Utilization of Preventive Health Services by Retired Employees Age 65 and Older

2001· article· en· W2103799189 on OpenAlexaff
Shirley Musich, A Ignaczak, Timothy J. McDonald, David Hirschland, Dee W. Edington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsCanada Auto Workers
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGerontologyLogistic regressionEnvironmental healthPopulationHealth promotionPublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Increased utilization of preventive services among the aging has been associated with improved health status and decreased medical costs. We sought to examine the use of the Health Risk Appraisal (HRA) in benchmarking compliance and characterizing those retired employees who met preventive service guidelines. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of retired employees age 65 and older. SETTING: Nation-wide health promotion program offered by General Motors Corporation. PARTICIPANTS: 59,670 retired General Motors employees age 65 and older who participated in a nationwide mailed HRA health promotion program. MEASUREMENTS: Preventive health services compliance was measured using selected HRA questions. Gender, HRA participation patterns, overall health risk status, medical plan selection and disease status were examined as predictors of increased compliance. Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to test the relative contributions of participant characteristics to increased utilization. RESULTS: The self-reported HRA data indicated that compliance levels were higher than national averages. The Healthy People 2000 goals for the preventive services studied were met and exceeded (with the exception of tetanus immunization). Higher compliance was associated with being male, younger than 70 years, multiple-year HRA participation, overall low risk status and HMO insurance plan selection. CONCLUSION: The results from the HRA indicated that this population participated at a higher level than a comparable national sample exceeding goals set by Healthy People 2000.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207