Health Status and Healthcare Use Patterns of Rural, Northern and Urban Manitobans: Is Romanow Right?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare health status and healthcare services use of rural, northern and urban Manitobans.Method: Using anonymized administrative claims data derived from the Population Health Research Data Repository housed at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, four Manitoba regions were compared -Winnipeg, Brandon, Rural South and North -for 1996/97-2000/01.Indicators include mortality and morbidity, ambulatory physician visit and specialist consultation rates, prevention/screening rates, selected surgery rates (cardiac catheterization, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, hip replacement) and "discretionary" surgery rates (tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy, Caesarean section, hysterectomy).Rates were annualized, directly standardized to the 1996 provincial population, and statistically tested for differences among the regions using Hotelling' s T 2 statistic.Results: Mortality and morbidity are high in the North, but the Rural South is average (except for high rates of injury mortality and stroke).Rural South and North have low ambulatory physician visits and specialist consultation rates, but high hospitalization rates compared to Brandon and Winnipeg.In prevention/screening rates, Rural South is variable and the North is low.For surgery rates, Rural South is variable, North is average, Brandon has below-average surgical rates but high rates of discretionary procedures, and Winnipeg has high surgical rates but low discretionary procedures.Thus, "urban" is not necessarily synonymous with good health and better access to services, nor is "rural" or "remote" synonymous with poor health and inadequate healthcare. RésuméObjectif : Comparer l' état de santé et le recours aux services de soins de santé des Manitobains des zones rurales, nordiques et urbaines.Méthode : À l' aide de données administratives anonymisées tirées du Population Health Research Data Repository du Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, on a comparé quatre régions du Manitoba, soit celles de Winnipeg, de Brandon, du Sud rural et du Nord, pour la période de 1996-1997 à 2000-2001.Les indicateurs comprennent la mortalité et la morbidité, les taux de visites ambulatoires de médecins et de consulta-Health Status and Healthcare Use Patterns of Rural, Northern and Urban Manitobans Sources of data for the research Anonymized individual-level records of all residents of Manitoba (including First Nations peoples) were used for this study and were obtained from the Population Health Research Data Repository housed at MCHP.This Repository contains such databases as medical billing claims, hospital discharge abstracts and vital statistics (mortality) linkable at the individual level.All files are de-identified, with names and addresses removed prior to use by MCHP, but the geographical location and demographic information such as age and sex are available.Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Health Research Ethics Board of the Faculty of Medicine, and was reviewed by the Health Information Privacy Committee of Manitoba. Indicators and statistical tests for comparisonVarious indicators were selected to represent regional mortality, morbidity and healthcare use (prevention/screening, physician and hospital use, surgical procedure rates).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".