Patterns of Service Utilization across the Full Continuum of Care: Using Patient Journeys to Assess Disparities in Access to Health Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare organizations have a contractual obligation to the public to address population-level inequities to health services access and shed light on them. Various studies have focused on achieving equitable access to healthcare services for vulnerable patients. However, these studies do not provide a nuanced perspective based on the local reality across the full continuum of care. In previous work, graph topology was used to provide visual depictions of the dynamics of patients’ movement across a complex healthcare system. Using patients’ encounters data represented as a graph, this study expands on previous work and proposes a methodology to identify and quantify cohort-specific disparities in accessing healthcare services across the continuum of care. The result has demonstrated that a more nuanced approach to assessing access-to-care disparity is doable using patients’ patterns of service utilization from a longitudinal cross-continuum healthcare dataset. The proposed method can be used as part of a toolkit to support healthcare organizations that wish to structure their services to provide better care to their vulnerable populations based on the local realities. This provides a first step in addressing inequities for vulnerable patients in accessing healthcare services. However, additional steps need to be considered to fully address these inequities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".