MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4317895485 · doi:10.1370/afm.21.s1.3726

Trajectories of Care of People Living with a Major Neurocognitive Disorder: A State Sequence Analysis

2023· article· en· W4317895485 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josiane Courteau, Isabelle Vedel, Amélie Quesnel‐Vallée

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Health careGerontologyMedicineCohortRetrospective cohort studyPopulationEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. The type and level of healthcare services required to address the needs of older adults living with major neurocognitive disorders (MNCD) fluctuate over disease progression while being complexified by multimorbidity and inequality factors. Thus, their trajectories of care (TC - the pattern of healthcare use over time) may vary significantly. Objective. We aimed to 1) Propose a typology of TC of people living with MNCD; 2) Describe and compare their characteristics by TC type; 3) Evaluate the association between TC membership, socioeconomic factors, and self-perceived health. Study Design and Analysis. Retrospective cohort study. The TCs were developed using a multidimensional state sequence analysis approach based on the ‘6W’ model of Care Trajectories, conceptualizing TCs according to 6 dimensions. Dataset. We used data from the Care Trajectories -Enriched Data (TorSaDE) cohort, a linkage between five waves of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) (2007-2016), and health administrative data from the Quebec provincial health-insurance board (1996-2016). Population Studied. Community-dwelling individuals who: 1) participated in at least one cycle of the CCHS (the date of the last CCHS completion is the index date); 2) were 65 years or older at the time of the index date; 3) had a diagnosis of MNCD at the index date. Outcome Measures. TCs were defined as sequences of healthcare use in the two years preceding the index date, using the following information: 1) Type of care units consulted (1. Hospitalization, 2. Emergency department, 3. Outpatient clinic, 4. Primary care clinic); 2) Type of healthcare care professionals consulted (1. Geriatrician/psychiatrist/neurologist, 2. Other specialists, 3. Family physician. We identified the MNCD before the index date using a validated algorithm. Results. The study cohort included 690 individuals living with MNCD, grouped into three distinct type of TC: 1) Low healthcare use (n=377; 54.6%); 2) High primary care use (n=159; 23.0%); 3) High overall healthcare use (n=154; 22.3%). TC type 3 membership was associated with younger age, being a male, living in urban areas, and a poorer perceived health status. Conclusions. Further understanding of how subgroups of patients use healthcare services over time could help highlight fragility areas in the allocation of geriatric care resources and implement best practices, especially in the context of resource shortage.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChronic Disease Management Strategies→French-language works237,207→