Variations in COPD Health Care Access and Outcomes: A Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health inequities among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often associated with differential access to health care and health outcomes. A greater understanding of the literature concerning such variation is necessary to determine where gaps or inequities exist along the continuum of COPD care. Methods: A rapid review of the published and grey literature reporting variations in health care access and/or health outcomes for individuals with COPD was completed. Variation was defined as differential patterns in access indicators or outcome measures within sociodemographic categories, including age, ethnicity, geography, race, sex, and socioeconomic status. Emergent themes were identified from the included literature and synthesized narratively. Results: Thirty-five articles were included for final review; the majority were retrospective cohort studies. Twenty-five studies assessed variation in access to health care. Key indicators included: access to spirometry testing, medication adherence, participation in pulmonary rehabilitation, and contact with general practitioners and/or respiratory specialists. Twenty-one studies assessed variation in health outcomes in COPD and key metrics included: hospital-based resource utilization (length of stay and admissions/readmissions), COPD exacerbations, and mortality. Patients who live in rural environments and those of lower socioeconomic status had both poorer access to care and outcomes at the system and patient level. Other sociodemographic variables, including ethnicity, race, age, and sex were associated with variation in health care access and outcomes, although these findings were less consistent. Conclusion: The results of this rapid review suggest that substantial variation in access and outcomes exists for individuals with COPD, highlighting opportunities for targeted interventions and policies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".