MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005351012 · doi:10.1111/jgs.16347

Sex Differences in Dementia Primary Care Performance and Health Service Use: A Population‐Based Study

2020· article· en· W3005351012 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nadia Sourial, Isabelle Vedel, Claire Godard‐Sebillotte, Jacob Etches, Geneviève Arsenault‐Lapierre, Susan E. Bronskill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineDementiaInterquartile rangeGerontologyPopulationEmergency departmentHealth careCohort studyCohortDemographyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Growing evidence points to underlying sex differences in the risk factors and clinical presentation of dementia. It is unclear, however, whether sex differences also exist in the management and healthcare utilization of persons with dementia. We compared primary care performance and health service use indicators for newly identified men and women with dementia in Ontario, Canada, over a 12-year period. DESIGN: Population-based, repeated cohort study between 2002 and 2014. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 318 350 community-dwelling adults, aged 65 years and older, newly identified with dementia, followed for up to 1 year. MEASUREMENTS: Eighteen indicators of primary care performance and health service use were assessed. RESULTS: Approximately 60% of the study population were women. Few differences in the indicators were observed between sexes, although men had fewer diagnoses first recorded by the family physician, more visits to noncognition specialists, less use of home care, more hospitalizations and readmissions, and longer discharge delays. Most indicators remained relatively stable over time for both men (median relative change = 13.7%; interquartile range [IQR] = 4.5%-29.7%) and women (median relative change = 15.7%; IQR = 5.9%-31.5%). Notable improvements over time for both sexes included access to an interprofessional primary care team, use of home care, and decreased use of long-term care. Areas of worsening included a higher occurrence of emergency department visits, lower continuity of care, and longer discharge delays. CONCLUSION: These findings raise awareness on the similarities and differences in management and health system use for men and women newly diagnosed with dementia, particularly the imbalance in hospital and home care use. As health systems continue to adapt to meet the needs of the growing dementia population, policy makers and clinicians should be mindful to develop care plans and interventions that consider the influence of sex on the need for services. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1056-1063, 2020.

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)0.002
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 score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207