Patient- and Physician-Level Factors Associated With Adherence to C-CHANGE Recommendations in Primary Care Settings in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ndeavour (C-CHANGE). We assessed the role of patient- and physician-level factors in the variation in adherence to recommendations for managing cardiovascular disease risk factors. METHODS: atabase (EMRALD) housed at ICES in Ontario. Five quality indicators based on C-CHANGE guidelines were modelled. Effects of clustering and between-group variation, patient-level (sociodemographics, comorbidities) and physician-level characteristics (demographic and practice information) were assessed to determine odds ratios of receiving C-CHANGE recommended care. RESULTS: In all, 324 Ontario physicians practicing in 41 clinics who provided care to 227,999 adult patients were studied. We found significant variation in quality indicators, with 15% to 39% of the total variation attributable to nonpatient factors. The largest variation was in performing 2-hour plasma glucose testing in prediabetic patients. Patient-level factors most frequently associated with recommendation adherence included sex, age, and multi-comorbidities. Women were more likely than men to have their body mass index measured, and their blood pressure controlled, but less likely to receive antiplatelet medications and liver-enzyme testing if overweight or obese. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of variations in adherence were attributable to patient attributes, but a substantial proportion of unexplained variation was due to differences among physicians and clinics. This finding may signal suboptimal processes or structures and warrant further investigation to improve the quality of primary care management of cardiovascular disease in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".