Modeling socio-demographic and clinical factors influencing psychiatric inpatient service use: a comparison of models for zero-Inflated and overdispersed count data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric disorders may occur as a single episode or be persistent and relapsing, sometimes leading to suicidal behaviours. The exact causes of psychiatric disorders are hard to determine but easy access to health care services can help to reduce their severity. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors associated with repeated hospitalizations among the patients with psychiatric illness, which may help the policy makers to target the high-risk groups in a more focused manner. METHODS: A large linked administrative database consisting of 200,537 patients with psychiatric diagnosis in the years of 2008-2012 was used in this analysis. Various counts regression models including zero-inflated and hurdle models were considered for analyzing the hospitalization rate among patients with psychiatric disorders within three months follow-up since their index visit dates. The covariates for this study consisted of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. RESULTS: The results show that the odds of hospitalization are significantly higher among registered Indians, male patients and younger patients. Hospitalization rate depends on the patients' disease types. Having previously visited a general physician served a protective role for psychiatric hospitalization during the study period. Patients who had seen an outpatient psychiatrist were more likely to have a higher number of psychiatric hospitalizations. This may indicate that psychiatrists tend to see patients with more severe illnesses, who require hospital-based care for managing their illness. CONCLUSIONS: Providing easier access to registered Indian people and youth may reduce the need for hospital-based care. Patients with mental health conditions may benefit from greater and more timely access to primary care.
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 | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".