A population‐based cohort study of ambulatory care service utilization among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Age-related effects on ambulatory care service utilization are not well understood. We aim to measure the utilization patterns of ambulatory health care services (i.e. family physician visits, specialist physician visits and emergency room visits) in the late life course (65 years and older). METHODS: A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted for the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006. All Ontario, Canada, residents aged 65+ and eligible for government health insurance were included in the analysis. RESULTS: This population-based cohort study demonstrates considerable increase in utilization rates and variability of ambulatory services as age increases. Variations in utilization were observed by gender as overall women were more likely to consult a family physician, and men more likely to visit specialists and the emergency room. A small group of high users, constituting 5.5% of the total population, accounted for 18.7% of total ambulatory visits. Finally, we report socio-economic status (SES) based disparity for specialist services in which high users were more likely to have higher SES. CONCLUSIONS: There is increasing utilization and variability in ambulatory service utilization with increase in age. Further research is required to explain the gender and SES differences reported in this study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".