MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152655705 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.050059

Older women's health priorities and perceptions of care delivery: results of the WOW health survey

2005· article· en· W2152655705 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Cara Tannenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHealth care deliveryPerceptionHealthcare deliveryHealth careMedicineData scienceComputer scienceFamily medicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As women get older, their health priorities change. We surveyed a sample of older Canadian women to investigate what health priorities are of concern to them, their perceptions about the care delivered to address these priorities and the extent to which priorities and perceptions of care differ across age groups and provinces. METHODS: The WOW (What Older women Want) cross-sectional health survey was mailed in October 2003 to 5000 community-dwelling women aged 55-95 years from 10 Canadian provinces. Women were asked questions on 26 health priorities according to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, and their perceptions of whether these priorities were being addressed by health care providers through screening or counselling. Differences in priorities and perceptions of care delivery were examined across age groups and provinces. RESULTS: The response rate was 52%. The mean age of the respondents was 71 (standard deviation 7) years. The health priorities identified most frequently by the respondents were preventing memory loss (88% of the respondents), learning about the side effects of medications (88%) and correcting vision impairment (86%). Items least frequently selected were counselling about community programs (28%), counselling about exercise (33%) and pneumonia vaccination (33%). Up to 97% of the women recalled being adequately screened for heart disease and stroke risk factors, but as little as 11% reported receiving counselling regarding concerns about memory loss or end-of-life issues. Women who stated that specific priorities were of great concern or importance to them were more than twice as likely as those who stated that they were not of great concern or importance to perceive that these priorities were being addressed: osteoporosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1- 3.2), end-of-life care (OR 2.6, 95% CI 2.0-3.4), anxiety reduction (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.8-2.6), fall prevention (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.6-2.7), stroke (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.0), depression (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-2.7) and urinary incontinence (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-2.5). The respondents' perceptions of care delivery varied across age groups and provinces. INTERPRETATION: According to the perceptions of surveyed women, health care providers are addressing many, but not all, of their health concerns, especially those that are of great concern or importance to these women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207