Primary health care engagement among marginalized people who use drugs in Ottawa, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionEngagement in primary health care may be lower among marginalized people who use drugs (PWUD) compared to the general population, despite having greater mental and physical healthcare needs as evidenced by higher co-morbidity, and more frequent use of emergency department care. Objectives and ApproachWe investigated which socio-structural factors were related to primary care engagement among PWUD using rich survey data from the Participatory Research in Ottawa: Understanding Drugs cohort study; these data were deterministically linked to several robust provincial-level health administrative databases held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. We defined primary care engagement over the 2 years prior to survey completion (March-December 2013) as: not engaged (<3 outpatient visits to the same family physician) versus engaged in care (3+ outpatient visits to the same family physician). Multi-variable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with primary health care engagement. ResultsAmong 663 participants, characteristics include: mean age of 41.4 years, 75.6% male, 66.7% in the lowest two income quintiles, and 51.1% with 6+ co-morbidities. 372 (56%) were engaged in primary care, with a mean of 15.97 visits per year (SD=20.18). Engagement was significantly associated with the following factors: receiving drug benefits from either the Ontario Disability Support Program (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 4.48; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 2.64 to 7.60) or Ontario Works (AOR 3.41; 95%CI 1.96 to 5.91), having ever taken methadone (AOR 3.05; 95%CI 1.92 to 4.87), mental health co-morbidity (AOR 2.93; 95%CI 1.97 to 4.36), engaging in sex work in the last 12 months (AOR 2.05; 95%CI 1.01 to 4.13), and having stable housing (AOR 1.98; 95%CI 1.30 to 3.01). Conclusion/ImplicationsNearly half of PWUD are not engaged in primary care, representing missed opportunities to improve health. Engagement in primary care may reflect both an increased need for health care, such as mental health disability, and increased access to primary care through other health and social services, such as housing support.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".