MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P31 Travel insurance in achd patients: Do they declare their condition?

2016· article· en· W2317589103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luke Pickup, Sarah Bowater, Sara Thorne, Paul Clift, Lucy Hudsmith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Medical insuranceHeart diseaseHealth insuranceDescriptive statisticsFamily medicinePediatricsDemographyActuarial scienceInternal medicineHealth careStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients are encouraged to live as active a life as possible. For most patients, international travel is realistic. However, adequate travel insurance is critical but may be difficult to obtain. Awareness of the need for disclosure of relevant cardiac conditions when obtaining insurance has not been studied amongst these patients. Method Anonymised questionnaires were distributed to patients at the ACHD clinics of a large quaternary ACHD specialist centre over a 2 week period. Responses were then collated and descriptive statistics used to analyse patients’ responses. Results 107 patients completed the questionnaire 55% male, 45% female, with 92% of patients being aged between 18–54. 66% had been on holiday within the last 12 months, 51% of whom went to Europe, 28% remained within the UK and the remaining 21% travelled outside of Europe. Of the total number who travelled outside of the UK, 86% had travel insurance. Almost a quarter (23%) did not declare that they had a pre-existing heart condition. Of those that did declare their condition 31% reported that it incurred a premium charge. Of those specifically travelling in Europe 71% stated that they used an EHIC card. 90% of respondents felt that insurance had not been fully addressed in the ACHD clinic, however only 10% stated that they had been rejected for a travel insurance application during their lifetime. Conclusion This study shows that while the majority of patients seen in the ACHD clinic are using travel insurance, a significant percentage are not declaring their pre-existing heart conditions, which may render it invalid. Most patients feel that the need for adequate insurance has never been discussed in clinic. Appropriate counselling is essential to maximise patients’ opportunities for travel, whilst ensuring adequate access to healthcare should problems arise. We recommend the availability of Sommerville Foundation Travel Insurance Leaflets in all ACHD clinics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→