Socioeconomic Status, Drug Insurance Benefits, and New Prescriptions for Inhaled Corticosteroids in Schoolchildren With Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-income children with asthma are less likely to receive inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions that can prevent asthma morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the receipt of inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma is related to household socioeconomic status and type of drug insurance. DESIGN: Using population-based prescription and health care data from Manitoba, a cohort study of the determinants of receiving new prescriptions for inhaled corticosteroids was conducted in children treated with asthma drugs. PARTICIPANTS: School-aged children (n = 12 481) receiving asthma prescriptions from January 1995 to March 1996 but no inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions in the initial 6-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Household socioeconomic and drug insurance predictors of the probability of receiving a new inhaled corticosteroid prescription from July 1995 to March 1998, following adjustment for disease and health care utilization factors. RESULTS: In comparison with higher-income children insured through a provincial cost-sharing drug plan, the adjusted likelihood ratio for a new inhaled corticosteroid prescription was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.97) in low-income children insured through the same drug plan and 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.88) in children receiving prescriptions at no charge through provincial income assistance or First Nations benefits programs (Winnipeg, Manitoba). CONCLUSION: Independent of asthma severity, type of drug insurance, or health care utilization patterns, low-income children with asthma are significantly less likely to receive inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".