MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296498812 · doi:10.1093/pch/21.supp5.e62

A Retrospective Evaluation of A Paediatric Consult Clinic Serving Uninsured Children in Canada

2016· article· en· W4296498812 on OpenAlexaffabout
S Suleman, J Humphreys, A Singer, R Markin, F Razik, H Au

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditHealth careInterimImmigrationRetrospective cohort studyMedical diagnosisReferralDescriptive statisticsMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Children new to Canada may not have health insurance which limits access to health care and increases their vulnerability to poorer health outcomes. As part of a resident advocacy initiative, a monthly pediatric consult clinic was created within a community health clinic to serve uninsured children living in a suburb of a major Canadian city. At the time of its inception in 2009, 35% of patients seen in the health clinic did not have provincial health insurance and an additional 35-40% did not receive Interim Federal Health (IFH) that they were otherwise entitled to (Denburg et al., 2010). OBJECTIVES: To describe the demographics and health issues of uninsured immigrant children referred to a pediatric consult clinic. DESIGN/METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review characterizing the patients seen from 2009 – 2013. We collected demographic information, presenting symptoms, diagnoses and clinical outcomes. After REB approval, 180 patients were identified and 159 charts were found. Data was extracted from each chart and coded into a database. Of these files, 38 were removed because of duplicate entries or if they were not seen in the clinic. A total of 121 charts were included in the final analysis. An audit was performed by a blinded reviewer to identify any discrepancies in transcription prior to descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Over half (52.1%) of patients seen in our clinic were landed immigrants or Canadians, while 19.8% had refugee status. 49.3% of patients were in a 3-month waiting period for provincial health insurance, while 12.6% had IFH, 11.6% had OHIP and 21.5% had no insurance at all. Only 34% spoke English as their primary language. The top three presenting complaints were developmental, dermatologic and respiratory. The most common final diagnoses were psychiatric and behavioural, dermato-logic and nutritional. The majority of patients required counselling (67%), with 14% prescribed a short medication course and 20% requiring ongoing medication. CONCLUSION: Almost 70% of patients seen had no insurance at the time of their visit, with most in the mandatory 3-month wait for provincial health coverage. Our study suggests that children still need access to health care during this period. The most common diagnoses related to mental health and development suggesting a high prevalence in immigrants and supporting the need to screen for these issues when caring for children new to Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicChild and Adolescent Health→French-language works237,207→