MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788524529 · doi:10.1002/hec.3862

Unmet health care and health care utilization

2019· article· en· W2788524529 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hana Bataineh, Rose Anne Devlin, Vicky Barham

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
KeywordsHealth careEndogeneityMedicinePublic healthEnvironmental healthHealth insuranceFamily medicineHealth policyConfidentialityNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to examine the causal effect of health care utilization on unmet health care needs. An IV approach deals with the endogeneity between the use of health care services and unmet health care, using the presence of drug insurance and the number of physicians by health region as instruments. We employ three cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey confidential master files (2003, 2005, and 2014). We find a robustly negative relationship between health care use and unmet health care needs. One more visit to a medical doctor on average decreases the probability of reporting unmet health care needs by 0.014 points. The effect is negative for the women-only group whereas it is statistically insignificant for men; similarly, the effect is negative for urban dwellers but insignificant for rural ones. Health care use reduces the likelihood of reporting unmet health care. Policies that encourage the use of health care services, like increasing the coverage of public drug insurance and increasing after hours accessibility of physicians, can help reduce the likelihood of unmet health care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth EconomicsSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207