Preventive care among primary care patients living with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Context/Objective: Family physicians may lack the knowledge or resources to adequately support patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Our objectives were to determine patterns of preventive care for patients with SCI in a primary care setting (i.e. cancer screening, influenza vaccinations, general physicals, bone mineral density tests), and determine physicians’ level of comfort with providing primary care to patients with SCI.Design: i) Retrospective chart review, ii) Survey of physicians in the family practice.Setting: Six primary care practice sites in Ontario, Canada.Participants: All adult rostered patients of the family practice with SCI; All family physicians in the six sites.Outcome Measures: Proportion of patients up-to-date on cancer screening, proportion of patients with influenza vaccinations, general physicals, bone mineral density tests; physicians’ level of comfort with providing care to patients with SCI.Results: Sixty patients were included in analyses. Rates of cancer screening were generally poor. The highest uptake was seen for cervical cancer screening, where 50% of eligible women were up-to-date on Pap tests. Only 36.7% of patients were up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening. Only 14 (23.3%) patients had a documented general physical exam in their electronic record. There was a recorded flu vaccination for 55% of patients, and of those, there was a median of 19 months since last vaccination. Fifteen physicians (21.4%) responded to the survey. Ten physicians reported at least one patient with SCI, with the maximum being 20 patients. Comfort level in managing SCI-relevant conditions varied and was lowest for spasticity, respiratory issues and autonomic dysreflexia, where only 27.3% of respondents had some level of comfort.Conclusion There are many opportunities to improve the preventive care of patients living with SCI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".