MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3161214758 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.210016

Supporting Equity in Rheumatoid Arthritis Outcomes in Canada: Population-specific Factors in Patient-centered Care

2021· article· en· W3161214758 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Emilie Pianarosa, Glen Hazlewood, Megan Thomas, Ralph Hsiao, Cheryl Barnabé

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineEquity (law)PopulationHealth careThematic analysisHealth equityNursingPublic healthQualitative researchEconomic growthEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Health equity considerations have not been incorporated into prior Canadian Rheumatology Association guidelines. Our objective was to identify the challenges and possible solutions to mitigate threats to health equity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care in Canada. METHODS: A consultation process informed selection of priority populations, determined to be rural and remote, Indigenous, elderly with frailty, first-generation immigrant and refugee, low income and vulnerably housed, and diverse gender and sex populations. Semistructured interviews were completed with patients with lived experience, healthcare providers, and equity-oriented researchers. These interviews probed on population factors, initial and ongoing healthcare access issues, and therapeutic considerations influencing RA care. Known or proposed solutions to mitigate inequities during implementation of service models for the population group were requested. The research team used a phenomenological thematic analysis model and mapped the data into a logic model. Solutions applicable to several population groups were proposed. RESULTS: Thirty-five interviews were completed to identify realities for each population in accessing RA care. Five themes emerged as primary solutions to population-based inequities, including actively improving the patient-practitioner relationship, increasing accessibility and coordination of care through alternative models of care, upholding autonomy in treatment selection while actively addressing logistical barriers and individualized therapy needs, collaborating with health supports valued by the patient, and being advocates for policy change and health system restructuring to ensure appropriate resource redistribution. CONCLUSION: The challenges for populations facing inequities in rheumatology care and promising solutions should inform guideline development and implementation, policy change, and health system restructuring.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→