MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Disparities in Travel-Related Barriers to Accessing Health Care From the 2017 National Household Travel Survey

2023· article· en· W4385295735 on OpenAlexaff
Muhieddine Labban, Chang-Rong Chen, Nicola Frego, David‐Dan Nguyen, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Amanda J. Reich, Timothy R. Rebbeck, Toni K. Choueiri, Adam S. Kibel, Hari S. Iyer, Quoc‐Dien Trinh

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDOD Prostate Cancer Research ProgramAstellas PharmaPfizerU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsRespondentTRIPS architectureLogistic regressionEthnic groupHealth careHousehold incomeMedicinePublic healthPublic transportAmerican Community SurveyCross-sectional studyNational Health Interview SurveyEnvironmental healthGeographyBusinessDemographyCensusEconomic growthPopulationTransport engineeringPolitical scienceNursingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Geographic access, including mode of transportation, to health care facilities remains understudied. Objective: To identify sociodemographic factors associated with public vs private transportation use to access health care and identify the respondent, trip, and community factors associated with longer distance and time traveled for health care visits. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, including 16 760 trips or a nationally weighted estimate of 5 550 527 364 trips to seek care in the United States. Households that completed the recruitment and retrieval survey for all members aged 5 years and older were included. Data were analyzed between June and August 2022. Exposures: Mode of transportation (private vs public transportation) used to seek care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with public vs private transportation and self-reported distance and travel time. Then, for each income category, an interaction term of race and ethnicity with type of transportation was used to estimate the specific increase in travel burden associated with using public transportation compared a private vehicle for each race category. Results: The sample included 12 092 households and 15 063 respondents (8500 respondents [56.4%] aged 51-75 years; 8930 [59.3%] females) who had trips for medical care, of whom 1028 respondents (6.9%) were Hispanic, 1164 respondents (7.8%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 11 957 respondents (79.7%) were non-Hispanic White. Factors associated with public transportation use included non-Hispanic Black race (compared with non-Hispanic White: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.54 [95% CI, 1.90-6.61]; P < .001) and household income less than $25 000 (compared with ≥$100 000: aOR, 7.16 [95% CI, 3.50-14.68]; P < .001). The additional travel time associated with use of public transportation compared with private vehicle use varied by race and household income, with non-Hispanic Black respondents with income of $25 000 to $49 999 experiencing higher burden associated with public transportation (mean difference, 81.9 [95% CI, 48.5-115.3] minutes) than non-Hispanic White respondents with similar income (mean difference, 25.5 [95% CI, 17.5-33.5] minutes; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that certain racial, ethnic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations rely on public transportation to seek health care and that reducing delays associated with public transportation could improve care for these patients.

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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations107
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207