Wait Times for Publicly Funded Outpatient and Community Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy Services: Implications for the Increasing Number of Persons with Chronic Conditions in Ontario, Canada
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
BACKGROUND: Timely access to publicly funded health services has emerged as a priority policy issue across the continuum of care from hospitals to the home and community sector. The purpose of this study was to examine wait lists and wait times for publicly funded outpatient and community occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) services. METHODS: A mailed self-administered questionnaire was sent in December 2005 to all publicly funded sites across Ontario that deliver outpatient or community OT or PT services (N = 374). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study sample and to examine wait lists and wait times by setting and client condition. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 57.2% (n = 214). More than 10,000 people were reported to be waiting for OT or PT services across Ontario. Of these, 16% (n = 1,664) were waiting for OT and 84% (n = 8,842) for PT. Of those waiting for OT, 59% had chronic conditions and half were waiting for home care rehabilitation services. Of those waiting for PT, 73% had chronic conditions and 81% were waiting at hospital outpatient departments. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with chronic conditions experience excessive wait times for outpatient and community OT and PT services in Ontario, particularly if they are waiting for services in hospital outpatient departments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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