Clinical Outcomes of Indigenous Versus Non-Indigenous Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study in the Province of Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Canadian Indigenous populations have a high incidence of poisoning; it has been suggested that care provided to the population living in remote areas is suboptimal. Our study aims to compare the continuum of care of poisoned people in Indigenous communities with those in non-Indigenous communities located in rural regions in the province of Québec. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study using data from the Center Antipoison du Québec (CAPQ) over a 2-year period (2016-2017). We evaluated the care trajectory of Indigenous patients suffering of poisoning as compared to non-Indigenous patients living in rural areas. Our primary outcome was the duration of CAPQ involvement in case management. Our secondary outcome was the symptoms severity at the end of case management. RESULTS: Among 491 identified poisoned patients (238 Indigenous/253 non-Indigenous), the duration of CAPQ involvement in case management was 9.4 h [2.9-21.3] for Indigenous patients versus 5.5 h [0.1-14.4] for non-Indigenous patients. No statistically significant difference was found between groups (geometric means ratio (GMR) adjusted = 1.08; [0.84; 1.38]). Results were consistent by age and sex groups. Most patients, in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, showed mild to moderate symptoms at follow-up (59% vs 54%). One death was registered in each group. The CAPQ received a limited number of calls from the non-conventioned First Nations during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe differences on the duration in case management. Perceptions of suboptimal care provided to rural Indigenous population are likely to be related to geographical remoteness rather than ethnicity. Further research is needed to better identify potential factors involved in the continuity of care provided in emergency situations. Another study will be carried out to describe the Indigenous realities and to better understand the results of this study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".