Factors Associated with Re-Visiting and Switching Clinics Among Adults with Upper Respiratory Infection Symptoms in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: The frequency of service utilization for the outpatient visits for upper respiratory infection symptoms in Taiwan was higher than that in the US or in Canada. However, the reasons for the frequent use of primary care among Taiwanese adults remain unclear. Objectives: To investigate the person-based patterns and to explore the related factors of re-visiting and switching clinics among adults with upper respiratory infection symptoms in Taiwan. Methodology: We obtained the national represented data from 2001 National Health Interview Survey in Taiwan. The 4,536 adults aged 18 and above, who permitted to release their information of the National Health Insurance Research Database and visited clinics for upper respiratory infection symptoms in 2001 were included in this study. Re-visiting clinics was defined as visiting clinics more than one time within 8 days after the first visit. Switching clinics was defined as visiting different clinics within 8 days after the first visit for upper respiratory infection symptoms. We used cumulative logit model to analyze the related factors of re-visiting and switching clinics. Results: In 2001, 1,322 (29.14%) adults re-visited clinics, and 276 (6.08%) adults switched clinics for upper respiratory infection symptoms. Among those who re-visited clinics, 185 (13.99%) adults had more than four episodes during the period. After controlling the number of clinic visits for upper respiratory infection symptoms and the state of chronic disease, women and adults with higher income were more likely to re-visit clinics. Those with poorly-perceived health were more likely to switch clinics. Conclusions: Taiwanese adults did visit clinics more than one time within one course of upper respiratory infection, and some of them switched clinics within one course. Related factors included not only demographic characteristics (gender, age, and income level), but also self-perceived health. To reduce unnecessary utilization of medical resources, we suggest encouraging home care and self-management and designing intervention strategies for the risk group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".