MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317878670 · doi:10.1370/afm.21.s1.3539

Understanding Ontario eConsult Utilization in Rural vs. Urban Settings

2023· article· en· W4317878670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheena Guglani, Ramtin Hakimjavadi, nikhat nawar, Clare Liddy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyContext (archaeology)TelemedicineRural areaMedicinePopulationDescriptive statisticsHealth careFamily medicineGeographyEnvironmental healthEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Context:</h3> Accessing specialty medical services in rural Ontario is a longstanding issue. Numerous barriers, including a scarcity of local specialist offices and excess travel times to urban centres, results in inequitable access to care for rural patients and can negatively impact health outcomes. <h3>Objective:</h3> To determine the proportion of rural vs. urban eConsults in each Ontario Health (OH) Region as well as the number of providers, specialty distribution, response interval, time billed, and results from a close-out survey. <h3>Study Design and Analysis:</h3> Retrospective, cross-sectional descriptive analysis. <h3>Setting or Dataset:</h3> Ontario, Canada. Population Studied: 72,948 eConsults submitted through Ontario eConsult Service (OES) between January 01 – December 31, 2021 were included. <h3>Intervention/Instrument:</h3> The OES allows clinicians to securely access asynchronous specialist advice in Ontario through the Ontario Telemedicine Network. <h3>Outcome Measures:</h3> The proportion of rural vs. urban eConsults in OH regions were identified using the forward sortation area (FSW) of the primary organization for each requesting provider. FSWs with 0 as the second character were identified as rural and values 1-9 were identified as urban. <h3>Results:</h3> 10% (n=7550) of eConsults were submitted by 591 providers with a rural FSW. 1.74 eConsults per 1000 residents were sent by rural providers in OH North and 0.98, 0.62, 0.05 and 0.0 per 1000 residents in OH Regions West, East, Central and Toronto respectively. The top four specialties for both rural and urban eConsults were Dermatology, Obstetrics/Gynecology, Hematology &amp; Allergy/Clinical Immunology. For both rural and urban eConsults, the median specialist response time was 1.0 days and the median specialist time spent was 15 minutes. In 76% of rural eConsults, specialist appointments were avoided vs. 75% in urban. In 58% of rural eConsults, providers indicated that they received good advice for a new/additional course of action vs. 54% in urban cases. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Rural and urban eConsults had similar results for specialty distribution, time spent, response interval and survey results. The OES is successfully improving equity of access in rural Ontario across different health regions. Further research should determine clinical content and types of questions that are being asked by rural vs. urban providers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207