MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890386437 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.913

Access to palliative care in Canada

2018· article· en· W2890386437 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMedicineHealth careEmergency departmentEnd-of-life careIntensive careAcute careFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursingGerontologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionMany Canadians prefer to remain in the community at end-of-life, and to die at home. To do so, early and integrated palliative care (PC) is needed to provide individuals with care and support services across care settings. Measuring access to PC can help to evaluate progress over time.
 Objectives and ApproachThis presentation will show findings from our study on whether Canadian decedents had access to PC in the last year of life. Data from physician billings, drug claims, home care, long-term care and acute care were linked to identify decedents and PC service use. These data were also used to examine how PC may affect, or be affected by other interactions with the health system, including inpatient alternate level care days, admissions from long-term care, emergency department visits and stays in intensive care units. Gaps in data availability and quality will also be highlighted.
 ResultsAbout 70% of decedents were identified using administrative health data, although there were variations across jurisdictions due to differences in data availability and quality (9%-81%). For decedents identified across care settings, few received PC in the community in their last year of life, ranging from 4% in long-term care to 12% in home care. More decedents were identified as palliative in acute care (44%) but only one-third received PC in another setting despite multiple interactions with the health system in the last year of life. Those who had integrated, community-based PC were less likely to have a stay in an intensive care unit, and more likely to die in the community. However, few Canadian decedents had access to this type of care.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsData linkage identified opportunities for earlier integration of PC and improved care transitions. However, lack of common definitions of PC across sectors and jurisdictions, limitations in data availability and issues in PC coding were identified. Improvements in PC data are required to evaluate progress for the future.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.309
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.240 · 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