MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166876309 · doi:10.1300/j027v22n01_05

Acute Health Care Service Use Among Elderly Home Care Clients

2003· article· en· W2166876309 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katharine Paddock, John P. Hirdes

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Services Quarterly · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsHomewood Research InstituteUniversity of WaterlooCanadian Public Health Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute careHealth careHome healthAutonomyHealth servicesFamily medicineNursingMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Utilization of acute health care services accounts for a substantial proportion of health expenditures in Canada, and is associated with compromised health and autonomy for older persons. Using the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC), this cross-sectional study of 683 elderly home care recipients sought to distinguish clients who were more likely to use acute health care services; i.e., hospital admissions, emergency room visits. Clients with nutritional problems were 2.58 times more likely to have used acute health care services than clients without nutritional problems. Among clients with a poor social support system, those with nutrition problems were 5.95 times as likely to have used acute health care services. Poor self-rated health, and greater functional dependency were also signif- icantly associated with acute health care use. This study provides a profile of elderly home care clients who are at risk of using acute health care services, which may facilitate targeted efforts to prevent unplanned acute health care use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Health Care Services QuarterlySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207