MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399963959 · doi:10.24926/iip.v7i2.424

Access to Breathing Medications in an Uninsured and Underinsured Patient Population

2016· article· en· W2399963959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda M. Singrey, Maria C. Pruchnicki, Jennifer L. Seifert, Juan Peng, Gregory Young, Kristin A. Casper

Bibliographic record

VenueINNOVATIONS in pharmacy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderinsuredPharmacyMedicineMedical prescriptionPopulationFamily medicineBreathingQuarter (Canadian coin)Emergency medicineMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthNursingHealth insuranceHealth careAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to explore access to breathing medications in an uninsured and underinsured patient population and identify needs for additional medication access resources. Quantitative data were collected from a dispensing report, financial database, and medical records review of patients who filled prescription medications at a charitable pharmacy in Ohio between December 11, 2014 and March 11, 2015, and qualitative data were collected from five semi-structured interviews with patients regarding breathing medication access. A total of 181 patients filled a breathing medication during the study period, which is nearly a quarter of the pharmacy’s patient population. The majority of patients were African American or Caucasian, and almost half were uninsured. Ultimately, the pharmacy had to purchase nearly half of breathing medications provided despite utilizing several medication access routes. Thus, access remains a significant challenge. Efforts are needed to ensure that vulnerable populations can consistently access breathing medications.
 
 Type: Clinical Experience

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINNOVATIONS in pharmacySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207