Accounting for the Hierarchical Structure in Veterans Health Administration Data: Differences in Healthcare Utilization between Men and Women Veterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women currently constitute 15% of active United States of America military service personnel, and this proportion is expected to double in the next 5 years. Previous research has shown that healthcare utilization and costs differ in women US Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients compared to men. However, none have accounted for the potential effects of clustering on their estimates of healthcare utilization. US Women Veterans are more likely to serve in specific military branches (e.g. Army), components (e.g. National Guard), and ranks (e.g. officer) than men. These factors may confer different risk and protection that can affect subsequent healthcare needs. Our study investigates the effects of accounting for the hierarchical structure of data on estimates of the association between gender and VA healthcare utilization. The sample consisted of data on 406,406 Veterans obtained from VA's Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom roster provided by Defense Manpower Data Center - Contingency Tracking System Deployment File. We compared three statistical models, ordinary, fixed and random effects hierarchical logistic regression, in order to assess the association of gender with healthcare utilization, controlling for branch of service, component, rank, age, race, and marital status. Gender was associated with utilization in ordinary logistic and, but not in fixed effects hierarchical logistic or random effects hierarchical logistic regression models. This point out that incomplete inference could be drawn by ignoring the military structure that may influence combat exposure and subsequent healthcare needs. Researchers should consider modeling VA data using methods that account for the potential clustering effect of hierarchy.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".