A cross-sectional study of the preventive health care activities of western Canadian rural-living patients unattached to primary care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevention services, such as screening tests and vaccination, are underutilized, especially by rural populations and patients without a usual primary care provider. Little is known about the compounding impacts on preventive care of being unattached and living in a rural area and there has been no comprehensive exploration of this highly vulnerable population's prevention activities. The twofold purpose of this research was to examine rural unattached patients' prevention activity self-efficacy and completion and to explore their experiences accessing healthcare, including COVID-19 impacts. Two thirds of patients had been unattached for over one year, and over 20 % had been unattached for over 5 years; males experienced longer unattachment compared to females. Completion rates of prevention activities were relatively low, ranging from 5.9 % (alcohol screening) to 59 % (vision test). Most participants did not complete their prevention care activities in line with the Lifetime Prevention Schedule timeline: 65 % of participants had less than half of their activities up-to-date and only 6.7 % of participants were up to date on 75 % or more of their prevention activities. Participants with higher prevention self-efficacy scores were more likely to be up-to-date on associated prevention activities but the longer patients had been unattached, the fewer their up-to-date prevention activities. Patients expressed negative impacts of COVID-19 including walk-in clinics shutting down limiting access to care. These results suggest serious gaps in rural unattached patients' preventive care and highlight the need for support when they are without a usual primary care provider, which can be lengthy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".