Global Rural and Remote Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Rural and remote patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at risk for inequities in health outcomes based on differences in physical environments and healthcare access potential compared to urban populations. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize epidemiology, clinical outcomes and health service use reported for global populations with RA residing in rural/remote locations.
 Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Healthstar, CINAHL and Cochrane were searched from inception to June 2019 using librarian-developed search terms for RA and rural/remote populations. Peer-reviewed published manuscripts were included if they reported on any of an epidemiology, clinical or health service use outcomes.
 Results: 54 articles were included for data synthesis, representing studies from all continents. In 11 studies where there was an appropriate urban population comparator, rural/remote populations were not at increased risk for RA, 1 study reported increased and 5 studies reported decreased prevalence in rural/remote populations. Clinical characteristics of rural/remote populations in studies with an appropriate urban comparator showed no significant differences in disease activity measures or disability, but with 1 study reporting worse physical function and health-related quality of life in rural/remote populations. Studies reporting on health service use provided evidence that rural/remote residence impacts diagnostic time, ongoing follow-up, access to RA-care related practitioners and services, and with variation in medication access and use.
 Conclusion: This synthesis highlights that RA epidemiology and clinical outcomes are not necessarily different between rural/remote and urban populations, however rural/remote patients face greater barriers to care which increases the risk for inequities in outcomes. From a public health perspective, we need leadership to implement structures and policies to support better outcomes in rural and remote populations. Access to health services is a recognized determinant of health, which presents the opportunity for actionable strategies and approaches to resolve inequities in care delivery.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it