MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006255521 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2020.26089

Patient–Physician Relational Continuity and Health System Utilization among Patients in Alberta

2020· article· en· W3006255521 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ceara Cunningham, Tanmay Patil, Rizwan Shahid, Alka Patel, Scott Oddie

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuity of careResidenceIndex (typography)MedicineHealth careEmergency departmentPopulationFamily medicineGerontologyDemographyEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Alberta, no standardized processes exist to identify patients with chronic diseases (CDs) who do not have a family physician. This study examined the association between relational continuity (continuity of care) and healthcare utilization patterns in this population. Relational continuity was assessed using health administrative data to calculate a Usual Provider Continuity (UPC) Index. The majority of patients with no or a low UPC Index were male, did not have CD and were healthy or non-users of healthcare. When grouped by UPC Index, regression modelling revealed that emergency department visits and unplanned hospitalization declined with increased continuity of care. Advanced state of disease(s) and location of residence increased the likelihood of utilization of these services in the low- and moderate-continuity groups.

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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207