MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115435079 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.2013-0052

Impact of a change in physician reimbursement on bone mineral density testing in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study

2014· article· en· W2115435079 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Susan Jaglal, Gillian Hawker, Ruth Croxford, Cathy Cameron, Anne‐Marie Schott, Sarah Munce, Sonya Allin

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesToronto Rehabilitation InstituteWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReimbursementBone mineralOsteoporosisDemographyPopulationFamily medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: On Apr. 1, 2008, a revision was made to the fee schedule for bone mineral density testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the province of Ontario, Canada, reducing the frequency of repeat screening in individuals at low risk of osteoporosis. We evaluated whether the change in physician reimbursement successfully promoted appropriate bone mineral density testing, with reduced use among women at low risk and increased use among women and men at higher risk of osteoporosis-related fracture. METHODS: We analyzed data from administrative databases on physician billings, hospital discharges and emergency department visits. We included all physician claims for DXA in the province to assess patterns in bone mineral density testing from Apr. 1, 2002, to Mar. 31, 2011. People at risk of an osteoporosis-related fracture were defined as women and men aged 65 years or more and those who had a recent (< 6 mo) fracture after age 40 years. Joinpoint regression analysis was used to examine trends in DXA testing. RESULTS: Before the policy change, the overall number of DXA tests increased from 433 419 in 2002/03 to 507 658 in 2007/08; after revision of the fee schedule, the number decreased to 422 915 by 2010/11. Most of this reduction was due to a decrease in the age-standardized rate of DXA testing among women deemed to be at low risk, from 5.7 per 100 population in 2008/09 to 1.8 per 100 in 2010/11. In the high-risk group of people aged 65 or more, the age-standardized rate of testing increased after the policy change among men but decreased among women. Among those at high risk because of a recent clinical fracture, the age-standardized rate of DXA testing increased for both sexes and then decreased after the policy change. INTERPRETATION: A change in reimbursement designed to restrict access to bone mineral density testing among low-risk women was associated with an overall reduction in testing. Efforts to communicate guidelines for bone mineral density testing with greater clarity, particularly as they relate to high-risk individuals, need to be explored.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207