Socioeconomic gradient in mortality of working age and older adults with multiple long-term conditions in England and Ontario, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesThere is mixed evidence on the influence of number of conditions on inequalities in mortality, we explored the association between number of conditions and deprivation on mortality whilst assessing the difference between working age and older adults. We replicated the analysis in England and Ontario, to provide a cross-jurisdiction comparison. ApproachWe used individual level-linked data from primary care activity, secondary care and mortality data in England and Ontario. For both jurisdictions, we took a random sample of 600,000 adults from 1 January 2015 and followed them up till 31 December 2019. We used cox proportional hazard to test the influence of deprivation (measured using area-level deprivation in deciles) and number of conditions (measured at baseline and capped at six conditions) on survival. Age and sex were also measured at baseline. Analyses were stratified by working age (18-64 years) and older adults (65+ years) and were repeated for England and Ontario. ResultsDeprivation gradient in mortality rate was steeper in working age than older adults in both jurisdictions. Number of conditions was associated with increased mortality rate, this was stronger for working age than older adults, in England (working age HR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.56,1.64 and older adults HR= 1.26, 95% CI 1.25,1.27) and Canada (working age HR=1.69, 95% CI 1.66,1.72 and older adults HR= 1.39, 95% CI 1.38,1.40). After accounting for number of conditions, the mortality rate associated with deprivation decreased but remained significant. The interaction between number of conditions and deprivation showed that adults with more conditions have a higher mortality rate and those living in deprived areas also have a higher mortality rate but having more conditions attenuates the deprivation gradient in mortality. ConclusionNumber of conditions contribute to higher mortality rate and inequalities in morality, this is stronger for working age than older adults in England and Ontario. The fragmented health-care system may be contributing to poorer outcomes, further research should help identify which part of the pathway is driving these inequalities further.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".