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

Access to palliative care in Canada

2018· article· en· W2890386437 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tracy Johnson, Clare Cheng, Christina Lawand, Maureen Kelly

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207