Acute Care Use for Ambulatory Care–Sensitive Conditions in High-Cost Users of Medical Care with Mental Illness and Addictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of mental illness and addiction in acute care use for chronic medical conditions that are sensitive to ambulatory care management requires focussed attention. This study examines how mental illness or addiction affects risk for repeat hospitalization and/or emergency department use for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) among high-cost users of medical care. METHOD: A retrospective, population-based cohort study using data from Ontario, Canada. Among the top 10% of medical care users ranked by cost, we determined rates of any and repeat care use (hospitalizations and emergency department [ED] visits) between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2012, for 14 consensus established ACSCs and compared them between those with and without diagnosed mental illness or addiction during the 2 years prior. Risk ratios were adjusted (aRR) for age, sex, residence, and income quintile. RESULTS: Among 314,936 high-cost users, 35.9% had a mental illness or addiction. Compared to those without, individuals with mental illness or addiction were more likely to have an ED visit or hospitalization for any ACSC (22.8% vs. 19.6%; aRR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-1.23). They were also more likely to have repeat ED visits or hospitalizations for the same ACSC (6.2% vs. 4.4% of those without; aRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.44-1.53). These associations were stronger in stratifications by mental illness diagnostic subgroup, particularly for those with a major mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of mental illness and addiction among high-cost users of medical services may represent an unmet need for quality ambulatory and primary 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".