Visits to Rheumatologists for Arthritis: The Role of Access to Primary Care Physicians, Geographic Availability of Rheumatologists, and Socioeconomic Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This multilevel study examines access to rheumatologists for all arthritis and inflammatory arthritis, taking into account geographic availability of rheumatologists, access to primary care physicians (PCPs), and population characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status [SES]). METHODS: We analyzed data from the population (age ≥18 years) living in the 105 health planning areas in Ontario, Canada on visits to physicians for arthritis and musculoskeletal disorders. Using data from a survey of rheumatologists and Geographic Information System analysis, an index of geographic availability for rheumatologists was calculated, incorporating distance between the population and rheumatologist locations and the number of hours per week of rheumatologist care. Multilevel Poisson regression was used to examine factors associated with the rates of rheumatology visits for inflammatory arthritis and all arthritis. RESULTS: Controlling for age and sex, the rheumatologist availability index was associated with visit rates for all arthritis, but not inflammatory arthritis. Patients living in areas with low access to PCPs or low SES were less likely to have office visits to rheumatologists for all arthritis and inflammatory arthritis. CONCLUSION: Besides potential deficiencies in rheumatology provision, there may be access barriers to rheumatology services, particularly for populations with low access to PCPs or low SES. This is of special concern for patients with inflammatory arthritis for whom rheumatologist care is necessary. In developing models of care for arthritis, this study points to the need to pay attention to areas with low PCP resources and areas of low SES, as well as the location and amount of rheumatology services available.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".