MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mapping Health Disparities in 11 High-Income Nations

2023· article· en· W4383483388 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAugusta UniversityCommonwealth Fund
KeywordsResidenceSocioeconomic statusHealth equityHealth careEnvironmental healthHealth policyGeographyLocationMedicineRural areaPublic healthSocioeconomicsDemographyEconomic growthPopulationNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Health care delivery faces a myriad of challenges globally with well-documented health inequities based on geographic location. Yet, researchers and policy makers have a limited understanding of the frequency of geographic health disparities. Objective: To describe geographic health disparities in 11 high-income countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, we analyzed results from the 2020 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy (IHP) Survey-a nationally representative, self-reported, and cross-sectional survey of adults from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the US. Eligible adults older than age 18 years were included by random sampling. Survey data were compared for the association of area type (rural or urban) with 10 health indicators across 3 domains: health status and socioeconomic risk factors, affordability of care, and access to care. Logistic regression was used to determine the associations between countries with area type for each factor, controlling for individuals' age and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were geographic health disparities as measured by differences in respondents living in urban and rural settings in 10 health indicators across 3 domains. Results: There were 22 402 survey respondents (12 804 female [57.2%]), with a 14% to 49% response rate depending on the country. Across the 11 countries and 10 health indicators and 3 domains (health status and socioeconomic risk factors, affordability of care, access to care), there were 21 occurrences of geographic health disparities; 13 of those in which rural residence was a protective factor and 8 of those where rural residence was a risk factor. The mean (SD) number of geographic health disparities in the countries was 1.9 (1.7). The US had statistically significant geographic health disparities in 5 of 10 indicators, the most of any country, while Canada, Norway, and the Netherlands had no statistically significant geographic health disparities. The indicators with the most occurrences of geographic health disparities were in the access to care domain. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of 11 high-income nations, health disparities across 10 indicators were identified. Differences in number of disparities reported by country suggest that health policy and decision makers in the US should look to Canada, Norway, and the Netherlands to improve geographic-based health equity.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.370 · 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