MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient-reported Differences in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Care between Jurisdictions with and without Government Funding for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

2022· article· en· W4294770451 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Judy A. Chiu, Mark Fenton, Najib Ayas, Marcus Povitz, Fernanda R. Almeida, Nelly Huynh, Tetyana Kendzerska, Diana Ratycz, Nick Bansback, Sachin R. Pendharkar

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa HospitalUniversité de MontréalUniversity of SaskatchewanCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of OttawaSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaContinuous positive airway pressureAirwaySleep apneaGovernment (linguistics)Positive airway pressureSleep apnea syndromesCardiologyIntensive care medicineApneaEmergency medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicinePolysomnography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Funding for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment may impact how patients access care, wait times, and costs of care. Objectives The aim of this study was to compare differences in diagnosis and treatment of OSA between Canadian jurisdictions with and without public funding for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Methods We administered an anonymous internet survey to Canadian adults reporting a physician diagnosis of OSA. Responses were categorized on the basis of whether the respondent’s province provided full or partial funding for CPAP therapy for all patients. We assessed wait times for diagnosis and treatment, patient-borne costs, and model of care delivery compared between jurisdictions with and without universal CPAP funding. Results We received 600 responses representing all Canadian provinces and territories. The median (interquartile range) age was 59 (49–66) years; 57% were male, and 21% were from rural settings. Patients living in provinces without public CPAP funding (n = 419) were more likely to be diagnosed using home sleep apnea testing (69% vs. 20%; P = 0.00019). Wait times were similar after adjustment for demographics, disease characteristics, and model of care. Although patient-borne costs of care were similar between jurisdictions, patients from regions without CPAP funding reported that cost had a greater influence on the choice of therapy. Sleep specialists were more commonly involved in OSA care in regions with CPAP funding. There was no difference in the current use of therapy between jurisdictions with and without public funding. Conclusions This survey study demonstrates that public funding for CPAP therapy impacts how Canadians access OSA care but is not associated with differences in wait times or costs. Future research is required to determine the impact of different funding models for OSA care on clinical outcomes.

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)0.011
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 score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207