MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162401839 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2021.71

Using Health Care Resources Wisely After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations to Reduce Low-Value Care

2021· article· en· W3162401839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sinwan Basharat, Karen Born

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicHealth careMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BusinessMedical emergencyNursingPolitical scienceDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 Low-value tests, treatments, and procedures are an important health care quality problem in Canada and across the world because they provide little clinical benefit, may be harmful for patients, and waste limited resources.
 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, health care systems face increased challenges of limited resources, reduced capacity, and a growing backlog of surgeries and other procedures. The pandemic has compelled health care professionals to make challenging decisions to prioritize health care services while coping with increased demand.
 As Canada emerges from the pandemic and health care systems rebuild and begin to address the backlog of delayed or cancelled services, there is an imperative to introduce lasting changes to reduce low-value care and ensure high-quality care is available to everyone.
 To help inform efforts for using health care resources wisely and to support decision-making, CADTH and Choosing Wisely Canada convened a 10-member multi-disciplinary panel of clinicians, patient representatives, and health policy experts to review areas of low-value care that can be reduced or limited. This panel reviewed, deliberated, and prioritized 19 recommendations of the more than 400 Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations, the implementation of which can help ensure high-value care after the pandemic.
 
 Examples of the 19 recommendations include:
 
 Avoiding unnecessary transfers for patients in long-term care to hospitals unless there is an urgent medical need.
 Limiting blood tests and imaging unless required to answer a specific clinical question or guide treatment.
 Not transfusing red blood cells for hemodynamically stable patients in the intensive care unit.
 Not delaying palliative care for patients with serious illness because they are pursuing disease-directed treatment.
 
 Moreover, the panel’s discussion highlighted how the selected recommendations can advance key priorities, including improving health equity and access to care, appropriately using limited resources, emphasizing patient-focused care, and addressing challenges the pandemic has presented for long-term care.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.638
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.065 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207