Hospitals in rural or remote areas: An exploratory review of policies in 8 high-income countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study reviewed policies in 8 high-income countries (Australia, Canada, United States, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, Croatia and Estonia) in Europe, Australasia and North America with regard to hospitals in rural or remote areas. We explored whether any specific policies on hospitals in rural or remote areas are in place, and, if not, how countries made sure that the population in remote or rural areas has access to acute inpatient services. We found that only one of the eight countries (Italy) had drawn up a national policy on hospitals in rural or remote areas. In the United States, although there is no singular comprehensive national plan or vision, federal levers have been used to promote access in rural or remote areas and provide context for state and local policy decisions. In Australia and Canada, intermittent policies have been developed at the sub-national level of states and provinces respectively. In those countries where access to hospital services in rural or remote areas is a concern, common challenges can be identified, including the financial sustainability of services, the importance of medical education and telemedicine and the provision of quick transport to more specialized services.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it