Factors Associated With Diabetes Care Quality Among Patients With Schizophrenia in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated demographic, clinical, and service-utilization factors that affected the quality of diabetes care among patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with schizophrenia and diabetes (N=26,259) in Ontario, Canada. Quality of care was based on receipt of three guideline-concordant diabetes care procedures between 2011 and 2013. A cumulative logit regression model was used to determine characteristics associated with optimal testing. RESULTS: Factors associated with optimal diabetes testing included more frequent outpatient psychiatrist visits (odds ratio [OR]=1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.20-1.37) and primary care visits for nonmental health reasons (OR=2.10, 95% CI=1.85-2.39). High-frequency primary care visits for mental health reasons, any hospitalizations, and emergency visits for mental health reasons were associated with lower odds of testing. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes quality of care may be contingent on receipt of medically focused primary care, psychiatric stability, and receipt of specialist psychiatric care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".