MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091909259 · doi:10.1186/s12939-020-01285-2

Sex differences in the management of persons with dementia following a subnational primary care policy intervention

2020· article· en· W3091909259 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nadia Sourial, Geneviève Arsenault‐Lapierre, Eva Margo-Dermer, Mary Henein, Isabelle Vedel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Equity in Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissement
KeywordsDementiaMedicineHealth services researchPublic healthGerontologyIntervention (counseling)Family medicinePsychiatryNursingDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The influence of sex and gender on the risk of dementia, its clinical presentation and progression is increasingly being recognized. However, current dementia strategies have not explicitly considered sex and gender differences in the management of dementia to ensure equitable care. The objective of this study was to examine the moderating effect of sex on the quality of care following the implementation of the Quebec Alzheimer Plan (QAP). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the evaluation of the QAP consisting of a retrospective chart review of 945 independent, randomly-selected patient charts of males and females 75+ years old with dementia and a visit to one of 13 participating Family Medicine Groups before (October 2011-July 2013) and after (October 2014 - July 2015). The quality of dementia care score, based on Canadian and international recommendations and consensus guidelines, consisted of documented assessments in 10 domains. We used a mixed linear regression model to measure the interaction between sex and the implementation of the QAP on the quality of dementia care score, adjusting for age and number of medications. RESULTS: We found that improvements in the quality of dementia care following the QAP were larger for men than women (mean difference = 4.97; 95%CI: 0.08, 9.85). We found that men had a larger improvement in four indicators (driving assessments, dementia medication management, Alzheimer Society referrals, and functional status evaluation), while women had a smaller improvement in three (home care needs, behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, and weight). Men were prescribed fewer anticholinergics post-QAP, while women were prescribed more. Cognitive testing improved in men but decreased for women following the QAP; the opposite was observed for caregiver needs. CONCLUSION: While the overall quality of care improved after the implementation of the QAP, this study reveals differences in dementia management between men and women. While we identified areas of inequalities in the care received, it is unclear whether this represents inequities in access to care and health outcomes. Future research should focus on better understanding sex and gender-specific needs in dementia to bridge this gap and better inform dementia strategies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Equity in HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207