Developing population segments with different levels of complexity and primary health care needs: An analysis using health administrative data in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".