Support service utilization and out-of-pocket payments for health services in a population-based sample of adults with neurological conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social support can help to deal with the consequences of neurological conditions and promote functional independence and quality of life. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of neurological conditions on the use of support and health-care services in a population-based sample of community-dwelling adults with neurological conditions. METHODS: Data were from the Survey of Living with Neurological Conditions in Canada, which was derived from a representative sample of household residents. Formal and informal support received and out-of-pocket payments were assessed by personal interviews. Logistic regression was used to explore the association between support service utilization and six common neurological conditions (Stroke, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease/dementias, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis) with stroke as the reference category. RESULTS: The sample contained 2,410 respondents and equate to an estimated 459,770 when sample weights were used. A larger proportion of people within each of the neurological conditions received informal support than formal support (at least twice as much). Samples with the non-stroke conditions were more likely to receive formal assistance for personal (odds ratios 2.7 to 5.6; P < 0.05) and medical (odds ratios 2.4 to 4.4; P < 0.05) care compared to the stroke group. Also, the non-stroke conditions were more likely to receive informal assistance (odds ratios 2.7 to 17.9; P < 0.05) and less likely to make out-of-pocket payments for rehabilitation therapy (odds ratios 0.2 to 0.3; P < 0.05) than the stroke group. The Alzheimer's disease/dementia group had the highest proportion who received formal and informal support services. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that Canadians with neurological conditions receive more informal assistance than formal assistance. Furthermore, it appears that stroke survivors receive less support services, while those with Alzheimer's disease/dementia receive the most compared to other adult neurological conditions. Such data can help inform the development of support services in the community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".