MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009126328 · doi:10.1186/s12913-020-5030-0

Healthcare utilization after a first hospitalization for COPD: a new approach of State Sequence Analysis based on the '6W' multidimensional model of care trajectories

2020· article· en· W3009126328 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alain Vanasse, Josiane Courteau, Mireille Courteau, Mike Benigeri, Yohann Chiu, Isabelle Dufour, Simon Couillard, Pierre Larivée, Catherine Hudon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsMedicineHealth careHealth administrationTypologyHealth informaticsCohortDescriptive statisticsCOPDPublic healthCohort studyEmergency medicineNursingInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Published methods to describe and visualize Care Trajectories (CTs) as patterns of healthcare use are very sparse, often incomplete, and not intuitive for non-experts. Our objectives are to propose a typology of CTs one year after a first hospitalization for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and describe CT types and compare patients' characteristics for each CT type. METHODS: This is an observational cohort study extracted from Quebec's medico-administrative data of patients aged 40 to 84 years hospitalized for COPD in 2013 (index date). The cohort included patients hospitalized for the first time over a 3-year period before the index date and who survived over the follow-up period. The CTs consisted of sequences of healthcare use (e.g. ED-hospital-home-GP-respiratory therapists, etc.) over a one-year period. The main variable was a CT typology, which was generated by a 'tailored' multidimensional State Sequence Analysis, based on the "6W" model of Care Trajectories. Three dimensions were considered: the care setting ("where"), the reason for consultation ("why"), and the speciality of care providers ("which"). Patients were grouped into specific CT types, which were compared in terms of care use attributes and patients' characteristics using the usual descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The 2581 patients were grouped into five distinct and homogeneous CT types: Type 1 (n = 1351, 52.3%) and Type 2 (n = 748, 29.0%) with low healthcare and moderate healthcare use respectively; Type 3 (n = 216, 8.4%) with high healthcare use, mainly for respiratory reasons, with the highest number of urgent in-hospital days, seen by pulmonologists and respiratory therapists at primary care settings; Type 4 (n = 100, 3.9%) with high healthcare use, mainly cardiovascular, high ED visits, and mostly seen by nurses in community-based primary care; Type 5 (n = 166, 6.4%) with high healthcare use, high ED visits and non-urgent hospitalisations, and with consultations at outpatient clinics and primary care settings, mainly for other reasons than respiratory or cardiovascular. Patients in the 3 highest utilization CT types were older, and had more comorbidities and more severe condition at index hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method allows for a better representation of the sequences of healthcare use in the real world, supporting data-driven decision making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations55
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207