Impact of Patient–Provider Attachment on Hospital Readmissions Among People Living With HIV: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission 30 days after discharge is associated with adverse health outcomes, and people living with HIV (PLWH) experience elevated rates of hospital readmission. Although continuity of care with a health care provider is associated with lower rates of 30-day readmission among the general population, little is known about this relationship among PLWH. The objective of this study is to examine whether engaging with the same provider, defined as patient-provider attachment, is associated with 30-day readmission for this population. SETTING: Data were derived from the Seek and Treat for Optimal Prevention of HIV in British Columbia cohort. METHODS: Using generalized estimating equation with a logit link function, we examined the association between patient-provider attachment and 30-day hospital readmission. We determined whether readmission was due to all cause or to a similar cause as the index admission. RESULTS: Seven thousand thirteen PLWH were hospitalized during the study period. Nine hundred twenty-one (13.1%) were readmitted to hospital for all cause and 564 (8.0%) for the similar cause as the index admission. Patient-provider attachment was negatively associated with 30-day readmission for all causes (adjusted odds ratio = 0.85, confidence interval = 0.83 to 0.86). A second multivariable model indicated that patient-provider attachment was also negatively associated with 30-day readmission for a similar cause (adjusted odds ratio = 0.86, confidence interval = 0.84 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a higher proportion of patient-provider attachment was negatively associated with 30-day hospital readmission among PLWH. Our study findings support the adoption of interventions that seek to build patient-provider relationships to optimize outcomes for PLWH and enhance health care sustainability.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".