MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282731843 · doi:10.1093/geront/gnv145

The Effect of Adult Day Program Attendance on Emergency Room Registrations, Hospital Admissions, and Days in Hospital: A Propensity-Matching Study

2015· article· en· W2282731843 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingAttendancePsychosocialEmergency departmentMatching (statistics)Names of the days of the weekEmergency medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of the Study: This study is an investigation of the effect of adult day program attendance by home care clients 65 years of age and older on numbers and rates of emergency room registrations, hospital admissions, and days in hospital. Design and Methods: Each adult day program attendee was matched to a single unique nonattendee (n = 812) on the basis of similar propensity scores which had been estimated from 19 demographic, psychosocial, clinical, and functional covariates. Evaluation of the propensity-matching procedure indicated that balance had been achieved on the covariates. Results: Subsequent analyses revealed significantly lower mean 100-day rates of emergency room registrations, hospital admissions, and days in hospitals for attendees, compared to matched nonattendees. Although lower rates were largely attributable to longer stays in the home care program for attendees, attendees' mean number of days in hospital was still significantly lower compared to nonattendees. Implications: Findings replicate and extend results from previous research that reported a decreased reliance on costly health care services by seniors who attend adult day programs.

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)0.002
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe GerontologistSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207