MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153180349 · doi:10.2147/opto.s303087

The Effect of Government-Uninsured Optometric Services on the Use of Primary Care Providers

2021· article· en· W3153180349 on OpenAlexafffundabout
William Jeon, Graham E. Trope, Yvonne M. Buys, Richard Wedge, Sherif El-Defrawy, Qi-Sheng Chen, Ya-Ping Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Optometry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)MedicineFamily medicineConfidence intervalEye carePrimary careOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Eye care in many countries is provided by optometrists, ophthalmologists, primary care providers (PCPs, including family physicians and pediatricians) and emergency department (ED) physicians. In the province of Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada, optometric services are not government-insured, while services provided by other eye care providers are government-insured. Clinics of optometrists, PCPs and ED physicians are widely distributed across the island. Clinics of ophthalmologists however are concentrated in the capital city Charlottetown. PURPOSE: To investigate if more patients visited government-insured PCPs and EDs for eye care when local optometric services are government-uninsured and government-insured ophthalmologists are potentially distant. METHODS: From PEI physician billing database, we identified all patients with an ocular diagnosis from 2010-2012 using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes. The utilization of government-insured PCPs and EDs in five geographical regions was assessed utilizing patients' residential postal code. Of the five regions, Prince was the region farthest from the capital Charlottetown. RESULTS: Compared to utilization of government-insured PCPs for ocular diagnoses in Charlottetown (13.5% in 2010, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.9-14.0%), the utilization in Prince (22.4% in 2010, 95% CI 21.7-23.1%) was nearly double (p<0.05). The utilization of ED physicians for ocular diagnoses was similarly double in Prince (8.8%, 95% CI 8.3-9.3%) versus Charlottetown (4.1%, 95% CI 3.8-4.5%). The utilization of ophthalmologists however was significantly lower in Prince (43%, 95% CI 41.4-42.9%) versus Charlottetown (56.3%, 95% CI 55.6-57.1%). Similar trends remained throughout 2010-2012. CONCLUSION: When optometric services are government-uninsured and government-insured ophthalmologist services are geographically distant, ocular patients utilized PCPs and ED physicians more frequently. Due to different levels of training and available equipment for eye examinations among PCPs, ED physicians and optometrists, the quality of eye care and cost-effectiveness of increased use of PCPs and ED physicians for ocular management warrant further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical OptometrySame topicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body InjuriesFrench-language works237,207