MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226185418 · doi:10.1370/afm.20.s1.2903

Early adoption of virtual care in primary care settings in manitoba, canada

2022· article· en· W4226185418 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander Singer, Alan Katz, Leanne Kosowan, Siddhesh Talpade, Daniel Shenoda, Elissa M. Abrams, Lisa LaBine, Sabrina T. Wong, Alanna Baldwin, Sarah Kirby, Gayle Halas, José François

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary careMedicineTelehealthContext (archaeology)Family medicineTelemedicineRemunerationPopulationRetrospective cohort studyHealth careSpecialtyBusinessInternal medicineGeographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was limited integration of virtual care (VC) in primary care clinical practice. However, the pandemic precipitated a shift with primary care providers utilizing VC to facilitate safe access to primary health services. Objective: To describe and characterize VC visits by primary care providers to patients following the introduction of the VC tariff code in Manitoba, Canada. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Primary care clinics that offered at least one VC visit and participate in the Manitoba Primary Care Research Network (MaPCReN), a practice-based network that contains de-identified EMR data from 265 primary care clinicians in Manitoba. Population: All encounters with a primary care provider participating in MaPCReN between 01/01/18 and 06/30/20. Outcome Measures: Tariff codes from billing records between 03/14/20 and 06/30/20 determine the visit type (clinic visit, virtual visit). Patient (sex, age, comorbidities, visit frequency, medication rates) and provider (sex, age, clinic location, provider type, remuneration model, country of graduation, return visit rate) characteristics describe the study population based on visit type. Generalized estimate equation models describe factors associated with VC. Results: There were 154 primary care providers that provided on average, VC for 47.6% of their patient visits. Among the 142,616 patients, 19.4% had at least one virtual care appointment, 29.4% had only a clinic visit, and 51.2% did not attend a visit with their primary care provider. Female patients (OR 1.16, CI 1.09-1.22) with ≥3 comorbidities (OR1.71, CI 1.44-2.02), ≥10 medications (OR 2.71, CI 2.2-1.53) have significantly higher odds of VC than male patients, with no comorbidities and no prescriptions. Follow-up visits were required for 21.2% of VC encounters; the majority (55.9%) had the same visit type. For follow-up encounters where the visit type changed, 42.2% of clinic visits were followed by VC, whereas 26.9% of VC was followed by a clinic visit. Conclusion: During the first 3 months of pandemic restrictions, there was an increase in the use of VC in Manitoba’s primary care settings. VC was utilized more commonly by patients with the most comorbidities and prescriptions, suggesting that those who require ongoing attention from primary care made use of VC services.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→