Policy strategies to reduce waits for elective care: a synthesis of international evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This synthesis seeks to assess and explain the effectiveness of policy interventions to reduce elective wait times or lists. PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit, and grey literature were systematically searched for relevant studies and reviews. Strategies with the strongest evidence base include paying for activity, buying capacity locally and setting targets with strong incentives. There is also evidence for improving the use of existing capacity. Limiting demand through rationing can reduce waits, but is ethically problematic. Short-term injections of funding, cross-border treatment schemes, unenforced targets and promotion of private health insurance had the weakest evidence. Available evidence favours options that act fairly directly on supply, demand or local organizations' behaviour, over indirect strategies that depend on a 'domino effect'. Further research is needed to determine how to achieve major, system-wide improvements in the use of capacity.
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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".