MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524114189 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013276

Do baby boomers use more healthcare services than other generations? Longitudinal trajectories of physician service use across five birth cohorts

2016· article· en· W2524114189 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mayilée Cañizares, Monique A. M. Gignac, Sheilah Hogg‐Johnson, Richard H. Glazier, Elizabeth M. Badley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioSt. Michael's HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesInstitute for Work & HealthToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineBaby boomersCohortPopulationCohort studyHealth careCohort effectDemographyGerontologyFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In light of concerns for meeting the provision of healthcare services given the large numbers of ageing baby boomers, we compared the trajectories of primary care and specialist services use across the lifecourse of 5 birth cohorts and examined factors associated with birth cohort differences. DESIGN: Longitudinal panel. SETTING: Canadian National Population Health Survey (1994-2011). POPULATION: Sample of 10 186 individuals aged 20-69 years in 1994-1995 and who were from 5 birth cohorts: Generation X (Gen X; born: 1965-1974), Younger Baby Boomers (born: 1955-1964), Older Baby Boomers (born: 1945-1954), World War II (born: 1935-1944) and pre-World War II (born: 1925-1934). MAIN OUTCOMES: Use of primary care and specialist services. RESULTS: Although the overall pattern suggested less use of physician services by each successive recent cohort, this blinded differences in primary and specialist care use by cohort. Multilevel analyses comparing cohorts showed that Gen Xers and younger boomers, particularly those with multimorbidity, were less likely to use primary care than earlier cohorts. In contrast, specialist use was higher in recent cohorts, with Gen Xers having the highest specialist use. These increases were explained by the increasing levels of multimorbidity. Education, income, having a regular source of care, sedentary lifestyle and obesity were significantly associated with physician services use, but only partially contributed to cohort differences. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a shift from primary care to specialist care among recent cohorts, particularly for those with multimorbidity. This is of concern given policies to promote primary care services to prevent and manage chronic conditions. There is a need for policies to address important generational differences in healthcare preferences and the balance between primary and specialty care to ensure integration and coordination of healthcare delivery.

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)0.003
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207