Differences among hepatitis C patients seen in community and specialist outpatient care settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the province of New Brunswick, care for patients infected with hepatitis C is provided in both community-based care settings and specialist-based care settings, but little is known about the differences between these populations. The aim of the current study is to characterize the demographic, socioeconomic, mental health and substance use factors of patients seen in these settings. Methods: Enrolling sites for this study included four specialist office-based clinics and one community-based clinic in three communities in New Brunswick. Personal health data was collected with informed consent via questionnaires and medical records. Non-incarcerated patients seen between April 2014 and April 2016 were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 374 patients were included (34.8% community versus 65.2% specialist office). Patients seen in the community care setting were younger (median age 43.7 versus 49.1 years), less likely to have a primary care provider ( p = .007), rely on social assistance as regular source of income ( p <.001), have been incarcerated ( p = .007), reported sharing drug paraphernalia ( p = .025), had recent injection drug use ( p <.001), reported snorting drugs recently ( p <.001) and reported prior overdose ( p = .025). Community clinic patients also had significantly younger mean age at first use of alcohol (13.6 versus 14.7 years, p = .044), marijuana (14.6 versus 15.8, p = .040), and opioids (23.9 versus 26.5 years, p = .036) over those seen in specialist offices. Conclusions: Unique differences exist between patients seen in community and specialist care settings in New Brunswick. Understanding these differences is an essential first step in developing patient-centred care models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".