MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168664914 · doi:10.1080/02813430310000500

Determinants of hospitalisation rates: does primary health care play a role?

2003· article· en· W2168664914 on OpenAlexaff
Kjell Lindström, Sven Engström, Calle Bengtsson, Lars Borgqúist

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsEngineering Link (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSocioeconomic statusPrimary carePrimary health careHealth careCross-sectional studyAmbulatory careOutpatient clinicFamily medicineDemographyEnvironmental healthEmergency medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the influence of rates of general practitioner visits on rates of hospitalisations. DESIGN: Ecological cross-sectional study of factors influencing hospitalisation rates. Aggregated data on primary care centre area level. SETTING: The county of Ostergötland, Sweden, with 3 hospital districts and 41 primary health care centres, and the hospital district of Jönköping in the county of Jönköping, Sweden, with 11 primary health care centres. OUTCOME MEASURE: Hospitalisation rates. RESULTS: Age and rates of outpatient hospital visits were the most important factors explaining the variation in rates of hospitalisations between the primary health care centre areas. Hospital districts, socioeconomic factors and rates of GP visits also influenced the rates of hospitalisations. CONCLUSION: When evaluating the influence of primary health care on the rates of hospitalisations, both socioeconomic factors and health care structure must be taken into consideration. Doing this, the rates of GP visits correlated negatively with the rates of hospitalisations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Primary Health CareSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207