Rural–Urban Disparities in Realized Spatial Access to General Practitioners, Orthopedic Surgeons, and Physiotherapists among People with Osteoarthritis in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rural Canadians have high health care needs due to high prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) but lack access to care. Examining realized access to three types of providers (general practitioners (GPs), orthopedic surgeons (Ortho), and physiotherapists (PTs)) simultaneously helps identify gaps in access to needed OA care, inform accessibility assessment, and support health care resource allocation. Travel time from a patient's postal code to the physician's postal code was calculated using origin-destination network analysis. We applied descriptive statistics to summarize differences in travel time, hotspot analysis to explore geospatial patterns, and distance decay function to examine the travel pattern of health care utilization by urbanicity. The median travel time in Alberta was 11.6 min (IQR = 4.3-25.7) to GPs, 28.9 (IQR = 14.8-65.0) to Ortho, and 33.7 (IQR = 23.1-47.3) to PTs. We observed significant rural-urban disparities in realized access to GPs (2.9 and IQR = 0.0-92.1 in rural remote areas vs. 12.6 and IQR = 6.4-21.0 in metropolitan areas), Ortho (233.3 and IQR = 171.3-363.7 in rural remote areas vs. 21.3 and IQR = 14.0-29.3 in metropolitan areas), and PTs (62.4 and IQR = 0.0-232.1 in rural remote areas vs. 32.1 and IQR = 25.2-39.9 in metropolitan areas). We identified hotspots of realized access to all three types of providers in rural remote areas, where patients with OA tend to travel longer for health care. This study may provide insight on the choice of catchment size and the distance decay pattern of health care utilization for further studies on spatial accessibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".