Evaluating Adult Cystic Fibrosis Care in BC: Disparities in Access to a Multidisciplinary Treatment Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Cystic fibrosis (CF) care that is delivered through dedicated, multidisciplinary CF clinics is believed to be partly responsible for improvements in the length and quality of life of persons with CF. We hypothesized patients living farthest from a CF clinic would be seen less frequently than recommended, which would result in reduced access to guideline-recommended care and poorer health outcomes. Methods. We performed a retrospective chart review of 168 patients who accessed CF care primarily through the St. Paul's Hospital Adult CF Clinic. Subjects were stratified into four geographical groups according to the estimated one-way travel time by automobile from their home address to the clinic (<45 mins, 45-150 mins, 150-360 mins, and >360 mins). Results. There were no significant differences in pulmonary function, nutritional status, CF-related complications, or access to guideline-recommended CF pulmonary therapies between the four groups. Compared to the reference (<45 mins) group, subjects in the two farthest groups (>150 mins) were less likely to be seen in the clinic quarterly as recommended by current CF care guidelines (p = 0.002). Those in the farthest group (>360 mins) were at risk for more rapid decline in lung function compared to the reference group (FEV1% predicted annual change: -3.1%/year [95% CI -5.1 to -1.1] versus -0.9%/year [95% CI -1.6 to 0.1], resp., p = 0.04). Conclusions. Access to CF care is a challenge for individuals who live outside Metro Vancouver and has health policy implications. Further initiatives should be undertaken to ensure equitable care for people living with CF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".