Access to Primary Care and Internet Searches for Walk-In Clinics and Emergency Departments in Canada: Observational Study Using Google Trends and Population Health Survey Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to primary care is a challenge for many Canadians. Models of primary care vary widely among provinces, including arrangements for same-day and after-hours access. Use of walk-in clinics and emergency departments (EDs) may also vary, but data sources that allow comparison are limited. OBJECTIVE: We used Google Trends to examine the relative frequency of searches for walk-in clinics and EDs across provinces and over time in Canada. We correlated provincial relative search frequencies from Google Trends with survey responses about primary care access from the Commonwealth Fund's 2016 International Health Policy Survey of Adults in 11 Countries and the 2016 Canadian Community Health Survey. METHODS: We developed search strategies to capture the range of terms used for walk-in clinics (eg, urgent care clinic and after-hours clinic) and EDs (eg, emergency room) across Canadian provinces. We used Google Trends to determine the frequencies of these terms relative to total search volume within each province from January 2011 to December 2018. We calculated correlation coefficients and 95% CIs between provincial Google Trends relative search frequencies and survey responses. RESULTS: Relative search frequency of walk-in clinic searches increased steadily, doubling in most provinces between 2011 and 2018. Relative frequency of walk-in clinic searches was highest in the western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. At the provincial level, higher walk-in clinic relative search frequency was strongly positively correlated with the percentage of survey respondents who reported being able to get same- or next-day appointments to see a doctor or a nurse and inversely correlated with the percentage of respondents who reported going to ED for a condition that they thought could have been treated by providers at usual place of care. Relative search frequency for walk-in clinics was also inversely correlated with the percentage of respondents who reported having a regular medical provider. ED relative search frequencies were more stable over time, and we did not observe statistically significant correlation with survey data. CONCLUSIONS: Higher relative search frequency for walk-in clinics was positively correlated with the ability to get a same- or next-day appointment and inversely correlated with ED use for conditions treatable in the patient's regular place of care and also with having a regular medical provider. Findings suggest that patient use of Web-based tools to search for more convenient or accessible care through walk-in clinics is increasing over time. Further research is needed to validate Google Trends data with administrative information on service use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".