Continuity of primary care and emergency department utilization among elderly people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People aged 65 years or more represent a growing group of emergency department users. We investigated whether characteristics of primary care (accessibility and continuity) are associated with emergency department use by elderly people in both urban and rural areas. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using information for a random sample of 95,173 people aged 65 years or more drawn from provincial administrative databases in Quebec for 2000 and 2001. We obtained data on the patients' age, sex, comorbidity, rate of emergency department use (number of days on which a visit was made to an emergency department per 1000 days at risk [i.e., alive and not in hospital] during the 2-year study period), use of hospital and ambulatory physician services, residence (urban v. rural), socioeconomic status, access (physician: population ratio, presence of primary physician) and continuity of primary care. RESULTS: After adjusting for age, sex and comorbidity, we found that an increased rate of emergency department use was associated with lack of a primary physician (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-1.49) and low or medium (v. high) levels of continuity of care with a primary physician (adjusted RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.44-1.48, and 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29, respectively). Other significant predictors of increased use of emergency department services were residence in a rural area, low socioeconomic status and residence in a region with a higher physician:population ratio. Among the patients who had a primary physician, continuity of care had a stronger protective effect in urban than in rural areas. INTERPRETATION: Having a primary physician and greater continuity of care with this physician are factors associated with decreased emergency department use by elderly people, particularly those living in urban areas.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".