Multi-province epidemiological research using linked administrative data: a case study from Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada has a publicly-funded universal healthcare system with information systems managed by 13 different provinces and territories. This context creates inconsistencies in data collection and challenges for research or surveillance conducted at the national or multi-jurisdictional level. OBJECTIVE: Using a recent Canadian research project as a case study, we document the strengths and challenges of using administrative health data in a multi-jurisdictional context. We discuss the implications of using different health information systems and the solutions we adopted to deal with variations. Our goal is to contribute to better understanding of these challenges and the development of a more integrated and harmonized approach to conducting multi-jurisdictional research using administrative data. CONTEXT AND MODEL: Using data from five separate provincial healthcare data systems, we sought to create and report on a set of provincially-comparable mental health and addiction services performance indicators. In this paper, we document the research process, challenges, and solutions. Finally, we conclude by making recommendations for investment in national infrastructure that could help cut costs, broaden scope, and increase use of administrative health data that exists in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Canada has an incredible wealth of administrative data that resides in 13 territorial and provincial government systems. Navigating access and improving comparability across these systems has been an ongoing challenge for the past 20 years, but progress is being made. We believe that with some investment, a more harmonized and integrated information network could be developed that supports a broad range of surveillance and research activities with strong policy and program implications.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".