MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2733834858 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.690

PLANNING HEALTH SERVICES FOR SENIORS: CAN WE USE PATIENTS’ OWN PERCEPTION?

2017· article· en· W2733834858 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sabrina Figueiredo, Alicia Rosenzveig, José A. Morais, Nancy E. Mayo

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionFeelingMedicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioRehabilitationHealth carePerceptionOddsGerontologyCross-sectional studyFamily medicineDemographyPsychologyPhysical therapySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across Canada, people over 75 years of age represent 16% of all hospital admissions. The admission rate per 100,000 seniors is 5 times higher for acute care and 22 times higher for complex continuing care than the rates for younger adults. After a hospital discharge, dealing with new disabilities can be difficult and even overwhelming. Understanding patients’ needs in a timely manner may allow services to be allocated to those at highest risk for deterioration, thus, improving care while optimizing health care cost. Could patient’s perceptions of how they are feeling be used as a marker of potential need for post-discharge services? The aim of the study was to estimate whether self-reported health can be used as an indicator of service needs among seniors. In this cross-sectional survey, age and sex-adjusted logistic regression was used to estimate the link between functional status indicators and fair or poor self-reported health. Results were reported as Odds Ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Backward stepwise logistic regression was performed to identify the best predictive model of service needs. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity and specificity were calculated to identify whether health perception could be used to identify people in need of physical rehabilitation services. 142 seniors agreed to answer the survey yielding a response rate of 73%. Among the respondents (mean age 79 ± 7; 60% women), 40% rated their health as fair or poor. Seniors perceiving their health as fair or poor had higher odds of reporting impairments, activity limitations, and participation restricitions (OR ranging from 2.37; 95%CI 1.03-5-45 to OR 12.22; 95%CI 2.68–55.78) in comparison to those perceiving their health as good or better. The most significant predictors of service needs were community ambulation, household tasks, fatigue, and pain with 92% sensitivity and a maximum adjusted R-squared of 0.65. Self-rated health used as single-item showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1, sensitivity of 52%, and specificity of 100%. In conclusion, our results indicate that all seniors reporting fair or poor health have indicators of need for further rehabilitation services. This question may be an alternate way of querying about need as many older persons are afraid to report disability because of fear of further institutionalization.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→