MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106910805 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.3175

The impact of sex, gender and healthcare system on quality of care among young adults with acute myocardial infarction

2020· article· en· W3106910805 on OpenAlexaffabout
Valeria Raparelli, Louise Pilote, Hassan Behlouli, Héctor Bueno, Gail D’Onofrio, Harlan M. Krumholz, Rachel P. Dreyer

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionLogistic regressionHealth careDemographyYoung adultHealthcare systemGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The quality of care among young adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may be related to biological sex, psycho-socio-cultural (gender) determinants or healthcare system-level factors. Purpose To examine whether sex, gender, and the type of healthcare system influence the quality of AMI care among young adults. Methods A total of 4,564 AMI young adults (<55 years) (59% women, 47 years, 66% US) were analyzed from the VIRGO and GENESIS-PRAXY studies consisting of single-payer (Canada, Spain) versus multipayer (US) systems. For each patient treated in each system we calculated a quality of care score (QCS) for pre-AMI (1-year pre admission), in-hospital, and post-AMI (1-year post discharge) phases of care (number of quality indicators received divided by the total number [range=0–100%], with higher scores indicating better quality). Ordinal logistic or linear regression models, and 2-way interactions between sex, gender and healthcare system were tested. Results Women in the multipayer system had the highest risk factor burden. Across the phases of care for AMI, 20% of quality indicators were missed in both sexes. High stress, earner status, and social support were associated with a higher QCS in the pre-AMI phase, whereas only employment and earner status were associated with QCS in all other phases. In the pre-AMI phase, women had higher QCS than men, mainly in the single-payer system (adjusted-OR=1.85, 95% CI 1.46,2.35 vs. 1.07, 95% CI 0.84,1.36, P-interaction= 0.002). Regardless of sex, only employment status had a greater effect in the multipayer system (adjusted-OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.44,0.78 vs 1.13, 95% CI 0.89,1.44, P-interaction <0.001). In the in-hospital phase, women had a lower QCS than men, especially in the multipayer system (adjusted-mean-difference: −2.48, 95% CI-3.87, −1.08). Employment was associated with a higher QCS (2.0, 95% CI 0.9–3.17, P-interaction >0.05). Finally, in the post-AMI phase, men and women had a lower QCS, predominantly in the multipayer system. However, primary earners had higher QCS regardless of system. Conclusion Sex, gender, and healthcare system affected the quality of care after AMI. Women had a poorer in-hospital than men and both women and men had suboptimal post-discharge care. Being unemployed lowered the quality of care, more so in the multipayer system. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Canadian Institutes of Health and Research (CIHR)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207