Healthcare Avoidance before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic among Australian Youth: A Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to healthcare for young people is essential to ensure they can build a foundation for a healthy life. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many people avoided seeking healthcare, adversely affecting population health. We investigated the factors associated with the avoidance of healthcare for Australian young people when they reported that they needed healthcare. We were able to compare healthcare avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic with healthcare avoidance prior to COVID-19. METHODS: We used two recent data collection waves from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC)-Wave 9C1 during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and Wave 8 data which were collected in 2018. The primary outcome of this study revealed the avoidance of healthcare among those who perceived the need for care. Bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regression models were employed to identify the factors associated with the avoidance of healthcare during the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods. RESULTS: In the sample of 1110 young people, 39.6% avoided healthcare during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic even though they perceived that they had a health problem that required healthcare. This healthcare avoidance was similar to the healthcare avoidance in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period (41.4%). The factors most strongly associated with healthcare avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic were female gender, an ongoing medical condition, and moderately high psychological distress. In comparison, prior to the pandemic, the factor associated with healthcare avoidance was only psychological distress. The most common reason for not seeking healthcare was thinking that the problem would spontaneously resolve itself (55.9% during COVID-19 vs. 35.7% pre-COVID-19 pandemic). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of youths avoided healthcare when they felt they needed to seek care, both during and before the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".