Geographic variation in preventable hospitalisations across Canada: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study is to examine the magnitude and pattern of small-area geographic variation in rates of preventable hospitalisations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSC) across Canada (excluding Québec). Design and setting A cross-sectional study conducted in Canada (excluding Québec) using data from the 2006 Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC) linked prospectively to hospitalisation records from the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) for the three fiscal years: 2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009. Primary outcome measure Preventable hospitalisations (ACSC). Participants The 2006 CanCHEC represents a population of 22 562 120 individuals in Canada (excluding Québec). Of this number, 2 940 150 (13.03%) individuals were estimated to be hospitalised at least once during the 2006–2009 fiscal years. Methods Age-standardised annualised ACSC hospitalisation rates per 100 000 population were computed for each of the 190 Census Divisions. To assess the magnitude of Census Division-level geographic variation in rates of preventable hospitalisations, the global Moran’s I statistic was computed. ‘Hot spot’ analysis was used to identify the pattern of geographic variation. Results Of all the hospitalisation events reported in Canada during the 2006–2009 fiscal years, 337 995 (7.10%) events were ACSC-related hospitalisations. The Moran’s I statistic (Moran’s I=0.355) suggests non-randomness in the spatial distribution of preventable hospitalisations. The findings from the ‘hot spot’ analysis indicate a cluster of Census Divisions located in predominantly rural and remote parts of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan and in eastern and northern parts of Nunavut with significantly higher than average rates of preventable hospitalisation. Conclusion The knowledge generated on the small-area geographic variation in preventable hospitalisations can inform regional, provincial and national decision makers on planning, allocation of resources and monitoring performance of health service providers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".