The ecology of medical care for adults in Alberta, 2002/03 to 2016/17: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: If we are to improve the patient experience, knowing where and with whom people receive professional health advice and treatment (the ecology of medical care) is the first step. We designed this study to define the ecology of medical care in Alberta and to examine whether province-wide implementation of 5 policy changes between 2003 and 2012 changed patterns of care among adults in the province. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults (age ≥ 18 yr) in Alberta using routinely collected data from 6 linked administrative health databases, the 2016 Canadian Community Health Survey and the Alberta Health Link teletriage system. We collected data on all encounters with pharmacists, primary care physicians, specialists, emergency departments and hospitals in 2002/03, 2009/10 and 2016/17. RESULTS: < 0.001). The proportion admitted to an acute care hospital (5.6%-6.5%) or academic hospital (1.2%) was relatively stable over time. INTERPRETATION: Despite implementation of 5 system-wide changes designed to affect the delivery of primary and specialty medical care as well as the use of pharmacist and nursing services in Alberta, patterns of health care delivery changed little between 2002/03 and 2016/17. Rather than searching for a policy "magic bullet," health care planners may be better served by focusing on upscaling and implementing interventions proven to be efficacious.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".