MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388720597 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.5330

A taxonomy of patient experiences of access and continuity in interprofessional primary care teams

2023· article· en· W4388720597 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nadia Deville‐Stoetzel, Isabelle Gaboury, Mylaine Breton, Djamal Berbiche, Christine Beaulieu, Élisabeth Martin, Sarah Descôteaux, François Bordeleau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinomial logistic regressionLatent class modelContext (archaeology)Mental healthMedicinePopulationFamily medicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthComputer scienceGeographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Patient experiences of access to care and continuity are essential to support health service improvements centred on patients’ needs. The ability to reach and engage in the care process varies considerably depending on patients’ socio-demographic characteristics. There is a need to understand these experiences to address inequitable access issues. Objective: To identify different profiles of access and continuity experiences of patients registered with interprofessional primary care teams. Study Design and Analysis: This cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2022 to April 2023. We used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify patients’ profiles based on 18 variables (access, continuity, chronic conditions, health status perception, clinic size, area) and multinomial logistic regression to analyze the class membership association with eight socio-demographic characteristics. Setting: 104 clinics across 14 regions of Quebec, Canada. Population Studied: 121,570 registered patients over 18 years of age with an email address in the electronic medical record. Outcome Measures: The optimal number of profiles (five) was determined using LCA measures (AIC, BIC, entropy). Results: Two profiles of patients in urban areas experienced difficulties obtaining care due to lack of availability of their physician: 1) “Mental health needs” (37% of respondents) perceived their mental health as poor and 2) “Physical health needs” perceived their physical health as poor (7%). 3) “Booking elsewhere” (28%) experienced difficulties reaching the clinic and consulted another clinic. 4) “Challenging booking” (12%) experienced difficulties reaching and traveling to the clinic. 5) “Rural chronic conditions” (16%) experienced difficulties with all access and continuity features, had a chronic condition, were in a rural area, and consulted at the emergency room. Female gender and a low education level were associated with belonging to class 2; male gender, high education and financial status with class 3; young age and low social support with class 4; elderly and low financial status with class 5; new immigrants with classes 1 and 5. Conclusions: These results highlight specific access barriers and potential areas for improvement based on patient experiences, such as difficulties related to physician availability for patients with mental health needs, reaching the clinic, and continuity of care for patients with social vulnerabilities and chronic conditions.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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→