Is Dementia Related to a Longer Wait Time to be Assigned a New Primary Care Provider? An Analysis of the Nova Scotia Need a Family Practice Registry Derived from the PUPPY-Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Access to Primary Care Providers (PCPs) is limited for many Canadians. "Unattached patients" are persons who do not have a PCP. Older adults living with dementia may face greater challenges seeking attachment. This study investigated whether older adults living with dementia experience differential wait times for PCPs compared to those without a diagnosis of dementia. Methods: This was an observational descriptive study of the centralized wait-list data from the Nova Scotia (NS) Need a Family Practice Registry (NaFPR). Time on provider wait-list by dementia diagnosis and age were compared. Number of days on the registry across these measures was estimated. Multivariable proportional hazards regression was used to compare hazards of remaining on the registry over time. Results: Unattached older adults living with dementia were on the NaFPR for less time compared to those without dementia (381.4 vs. 428.8 days, respectively). After adjusting for age, self-reported gender, comorbidity, rurality, income quintiles, and overall deprivation, older adults with dementia had a 1.13-fold (95% CI: 1.04-1.24) increase in the likelihood of leaving the NaFPR. Potential contributors to this small difference could be placement in Long Term Care (LTC) and subsequent facility PCP attachment. Conclusions: Analysis of the NaFPR exhibited similarly time to PCP attachment despite a diagnosis of dementia. This represented an effective equality model of health care utilized in NS. Future studies should investigate whether an equity model with priority attachment for vulnerable patients would reduce hospitalization and LTC institutionalization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".