Measuring Quality of Healthcare Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes from Routine Data: a Seven-nation Survey Conducted by the IMIA Primary Health Care Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background: The Institute of Medicine framework defines six dimensions of quality for healthcare systems: (1) safety, (2) effectiveness, (3) patient centeredness, (4) timeliness of care, (5) efficiency, and (6) equity. Large health datasets provide an opportunity to assess quality in these areas. Objective: To perform an international comparison of the measurability of the delivery of these aims, in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from large datasets. Method: We conducted a survey to assess healthcare outcomes data quality of existing databases and disseminated this through professional networks. We examined the data sources used to collect the data, frequency of data uploads, and data types used for identifying people with T2DM. We compared data completeness across the six areas of healthcare quality, using selected measures pertinent to T2DM management. Results: We received 14 responses from seven countries (Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey and the UK). Most databases reported frequent data uploads and would be capable of near real time analysis of healthcare quality. The majority of recorded data related to safety (particularly medication adverse events) and treatment efficacy (glycaemic control and microvascular disease). Data potentially measuring equity was less well recorded. Recording levels were lowest for patient-centred care, timeliness of care, and system efficiency, with the majority of databases containing no data in these areas. Databases using primary care sources had higher data quality across all areas measured. Conclusion: Data quality could be improved particularly in the areas of patient-centred care, timeliness, and efficiency. Primary care derived datasets may be most suited to healthcare quality assessment.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".