Primary care continuity and potentially avoidable hospitalization in persons with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To measure the association between high primary care continuity and potentially avoidable hospitalization in community-dwelling persons with dementia. Our hypothesis was that high primary care continuity is associated with fewer potentially avoidable hospitalizations. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort (2012-2016), with inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score. SETTING: Quebec (Canada) health administrative database, recording most primary, secondary and tertiary care services provided via the public universal health insurance system. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based sample of 22,060 community-dwelling 65 + persons with dementia on March 31st, 2015, with at least two primary care visits in the preceding year (mean age 81 years, 60% female). Participants were followed for 1 year, or until death or long-term care admission. EXPOSURE: High primary care continuity on March 31st, 2015, i.e., having had every primary care visit with the same primary care physician, during the preceding year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: Potentially avoidable hospitalization in the follow-up period as defined by ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) hospitalization (general and older population definitions), 30-day hospital readmission; Secondary: Hospitalization and emergency department visit. RESULTS: Among the 22,060 persons, compared with the persons with low primary care continuity, the 14,515 (65.8%) persons with high primary care continuity had a lower risk of ACSC hospitalization (general population definition) (relative risk reduction 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94), ACSC hospitalization (older population definition) (0.87, 0.79-0.95), 30-day hospital readmission (0.81, 0.72-0.92), hospitalization (0.90, 0.86-0.94), and emergency department visit (0.92, 0.90-0.95). The number needed to treat to prevent one event were, respectively, 118 (69-356), 87 (52-252), 97 (60-247), 23 (17-34), and 29 (21-47). CONCLUSION: Increasing continuity with a primary care physician might be an avenue to reduce potentially avoidable hospitalizations in community-dwelling persons with dementia on a population-wide level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".