MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3040752619 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234876

Health service utilization in immigrants with multiple sclerosis

2020· article· en· W3040752619 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dalia Rotstein, Ruth Ann Marrie, Karen Tu, Susan Schultz, Kinwah Fung, Colleen J. Maxwell

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of WaterlooNorth York General HospitalUniversity of ManitobaToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Frailty NetworkCrohn's and Colitis CanadaUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaCanadian Dermatology FoundationArthritis SocietyMultiple Sclerosis SocietyConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissementPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationCanadian Rheumatology AssociationCancer Care OntarioHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyEmergency departmentResidenceSocioeconomic statusImmigrationDemographyComorbidityRate ratioHealth careFamily medicinePediatricsEmergency medicineConfidence intervalEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Access to neurology specialty care can influence outcomes in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), but may vary based on patient sociodemographic characteristics, including immigration status. OBJECTIVE: To compare health services utilization in the year of MS diagnosis, one year before diagnosis and two years after diagnosis in immigrants versus long-term residents in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We identified incident cases of MS among adults aged 20-65 years by applying a validated algorithm to health administrative data in Ontario, Canada, a region with universal health insurance and comprehensive coverage. We separately assessed hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, outpatient neurology visits, other outpatient specialty visits, and primary care visits. We compared rates of health service use in immigrants versus long-term residents using negative binomial regression models with generalized estimating equations adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, urban/rural residence, MS diagnosis calendar year, and comorbidity burden. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2014, there were 13,028 incident MS cases in Ontario, of whom 1,070 (8.2%) were immigrants. As compared to long-term residents, rates of hospitalization were similar (Adjusted rate ratio (ARR) 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73-1.01) in immigrants the year before MS diagnosis, but outpatient neurology visits (ARR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.87-0.99) were slightly less frequent. However, immigrants had higher rates of hospitalization during the diagnosis year (ARR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04-1.39), and had greater use of outpatient neurology (ARR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12-1.23) but fewer ED visits (ARR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78-0.96). In the first post-diagnosis year, immigrants continued to have greater numbers of outpatient neurology visits (ARR 1.16; 95% CI: 1.10-1.23), but had fewer hospitalizations (ARR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.67-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings were reassuring concerning health services access for immigrants with MS in Ontario, a publicly funded health care system. However, immigrants were more likely to be hospitalized despite greater use of outpatient neurology care in the year of MS diagnosis. Reasons for this may include more severe disease presentation or lack of social support among immigrants and warrant further investigation.

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)0.000
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 score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.008 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→