Health Care Utilization Characteristics in Patch Test Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The length of time between onset of symptoms and definitive diagnosis is associated with outcomes in contact dermatitis (CD). Understanding the health care experience of patients with CD could identify areas for improvement. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to describe the health care experience of individuals being patch tested and the barriers and facilitators to their seeking care. METHODS: One hundred forty-nine patients completed a survey containing information on types of health care providers seen, length of wait times, and barriers and facilitators to seeking care. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent were first assessed by their family physicians. Forty-five percent waited more than 3 months before seeing a health care provider. Common reasons for delay included thinking their symptoms (1) would get better, (2) were not serious enough, or (3) were not limiting their ability to work or carry out other activities. Most patients waited less than 3 months for dermatological assessment and for patch test consultation after referral. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with possible CD spend considerable time in the health care system before they undergo definitive assessment. Understanding the reasons for not seeking care may be useful for promoting earlier evaluation and intervention to result in better outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".