Association of Neighbourhood-Level Material Deprivation with Adverse Outcomes and Processes of Care Among Patients with Heart Failure in a Single-Payer Healthcare System: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We studied the association between neighbourhood material deprivation, a metric estimating inability to attain basic material needs, with outcomes and processes of care among incident heart failure patients in a universal healthcare system. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a population-based retrospective study (2007-2019), we examined the association of material deprivation with 1-year all-cause mortality, cause-specific hospitalization, and 90-day processes of care. Using cause-specific hazards regression, we quantified the relative rate of events after multiple covariate adjustment, stratifying by age ≤65 or ≥66 years. Among 395 763 patients (median age 76 [interquartile range 66-84] years, 47% women), there was significant interaction between age and deprivation quintile for mortality/hospitalization outcomes (p ≤ 0.001). Younger residents (age ≤65 years) of the most versus least deprived neighbourhoods had higher hazards of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.29]) and cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 1.29 [95% CI 1.19-1.39]). Older individuals (≥66 years) in the most deprived neighbourhoods had significantly higher hazard of death (HR 1.11 [95% CI 1.08-1.14]) and cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 1.13 [95% CI 1.09-1.18]) compared to the least deprived. The magnitude of the association between deprivation and outcomes was amplified in the younger compared to the older age group. More deprived individuals in both age groups had a lower hazard of cardiology visits and advanced cardiac imaging (all p < 0.001), while the most deprived of younger ages were less likely to undergo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker implantation (p = 0.023), compared to the least deprived. CONCLUSION: Patients with newly-diagnosed heart failure residing in the most deprived neighbourhoods had worse outcomes and reduced access to care than those less deprived.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".