MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606433617 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v1i1.208

Developing population segments with different levels of complexity and primary health care needs: An analysis using health administrative data in British Columbia, Canada

2017· article· en· W2606433617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia M. Langton, Sabrina T. Wong, Sandra Peterson, Kim McGrail

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationHealth careMedicineVulnerability (computing)Family medicineGerontologyNursingEnvironmental healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTObjectivesPopulation subgroups can be been used organize health services and understand the quality of health care. Most commonly, populations are have been by specific diseases (e.g., health care received by diabetes patients), patient age (e.g., elderly populations), or life-stage (e.g., end-of-life care). However, these subgroups may not adequately capture the complexity and/or health care needs of different patient groups (e.g., multi-morbidity, frail elderly). Our objective is to use health administrative data to develop population segments based on patients’ primary health care needs. ApproachOur development process occurred in three stages. First, we examined examples of population segmentation in the peer reviewed and grey literature to develop principles for our population segments. Second, we held a workshop with primary care patients, decision-makers, clinicians and researchers to seek their input on important considerations for the population segments. Third, we used health administrative data (physician claims, hospitalisations) to develop population segments for the British Columbia (BC, Canada) population. Segments were based on diagnosis codes over a two year period; for each segment we examined health care use and costs, overall and by service type, in 2014-15. ResultsWe designed our segments to be mutually exclusive, capture the vast majority of people who use primary care services, and range from healthy patients (fewer primary care needs) to more complex patients (more extensive needs). Stakeholders were supportive of population segmentation approach and suggested incorporating patient vulnerability and primary care involvement such that segments would range from patients whose needs could be fully met in primary care to those who require additional services such as specialists/acute care. Our first iteration includes three segments: stable (≤1 chronic condition, needs met by primary care); multi-morbid (≥2 chronic conditions, needs mostly met by primary care); and complex (≤1 chronic condition and presence of a health care event associated with the management of this condition suggesting the patients’ needs not fully met by primary care). ConclusionWe developed population segments designed to account for patient complexity and primary health care needs; as such, segments provide more information than traditional indices of morbidity burden based on counts of chronic conditions. These segments will be used to report information on the quality of primary care. We plan to include conduct validation studies using additional variables (e.g, socio-economic factors, level of vulnerability from patient surveys) so that segments more accurately represent the level of complexity and patients’ primary health care needs.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.022
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207