MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220662443 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049686

CUP study: protocol for a comparative analysis of centralised waitlist effectiveness, policies and innovations for connecting unattached patients to primary care providers

2022· article· en· W4220662443 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emily Gard Marshall, Mylaine Breton, Michael Green, Lynn Edwards, Caitlyn Ayn, Mélanie Ann Smithman, Shannon Ryan Carson, Rachelle Ashcroft, Imaan Bayoumi, Frederick Burge, Véronique Deslauriers, Beverley Lawson, Maria Mathews, Charmaine McPherson, Lauren Moritz, Sue Nesto, David Stock, Sabrina T. Wong, Melissa K. Andrew

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern UniversityHôpital Charles-Le MoyneQueen's UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeNova Scotia Health AuthorityUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHealth careStakeholderService providerHealth services researchResearch ethicsNursingFamily medicineService (business)Public relationsPublic healthPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Access to a primary care provider is a key component of high-functioning healthcare systems. In Canada, 15% of patients do not have a regular primary care provider and are classified as 'unattached'. In an effort to link unattached patients with a provider, seven Canadian provinces implemented centralised waitlists (CWLs). The effectiveness of CWLs in attaching patients to regular primary care providers is unknown. Factors influencing CWLs effectiveness, particularly across jurisdictional contexts, have yet to be confirmed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods case study will be conducted across three Canadian provinces: Ontario, Québec and Nova Scotia. Quantitatively, CWL data will be linked to administrative and provider billing data to assess the rates of patient attachment over time and delay of attachment, stratified by demographics and compared with select indicators of health service utilisation. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with policymakers, patients, and primary care providers to elicit narratives regarding the administration, use, and access of CWLs. An analysis of policy documents will be used to identify contextual factors affecting CWL effectiveness. Stakeholder dialogues will be facilitated to uncover causal pathways and identify strategies for improving patient attachment to primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval to conduct this study has been granted in Ontario (Queens University Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board, file number 6028052; Western University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, project 116591; University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, protocol number 40335), Québec (Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Estrie, project number 2020-3446) and Nova Scotia (Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, file number 1024979).

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)0.119
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1190.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1720.027

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→