MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133986861 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190194

Family medicine–directed hepatitis C care and barriers to treatment: a mixed-methods study

2021· article· en· W3133986861 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Zoë von Aesch, Amy Craig-Neil, Hemant Shah, Tony Antoniou, Christopher Meaney, Andrew D. Pinto

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalHepatitis CInternal medicineHepatitis C virusRetrospective cohort studyMedical recordDrug treatmentFamily medicineImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Antivirals for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are effective, but many patients remain untreated and treatment is not yet routine in primary care. We evaluated the characteristics of patients who engaged in HCV treatment, and clinician perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to treatment. METHODS: Our mixed-method, parallel-design study was conducted at a multisite primary care centre in downtown Toronto. In a retrospective chart review, we searched records from 2011 to 2017 to collect quantitative data, including HCV infection status and HCV treatment status. To contextualize the data, we conducted in-depth interviews with select physicians between Aug. 1 and Nov. 1, 2017, and analyzed the transcripts using content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 40 381 charts reviewed, 727 patients (1.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7%-1.9%) were infected with HCV, and 542 (74.6%) had HCV infection requiring treatment. Of those, 255 patients (47.0%) had engaged in treatment. Patients who had engaged in treatment were more likely to be male (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.10-2.42), older (OR 1.04 per year increase in age, 95% CI 1.02-1.05) and housed (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.36-3.75), and they were more likely not to have engaged in injection drug use (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.33-2.63). Based on interviews with 8 physicians, treatment barriers included a lack of knowledge about HCV treatment, concerns that patients would not adhere to medications and challenges related to medication access. Facilitators of treatment included access to specialist consultation, pharmacist support and primary care treatment guidelines. Common themes that emerged in both quantitative and qualitative components were the roles of unstable housing and intravenous drug use as barriers to engaging in and completing treatment. INTERPRETATION: Our study captured provider-identified barriers to HCV care and the key factors related to retention in HCV care, including gender, age, housing status and experience with drug use. Successful primary-care-led HCV treatment programs may incorporate specialist and pharmacy support and focus on younger, female, underhoused populations and people who use drugs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207