Patterns and determinants of health care utilization among people with Parkinson’s disease: A population-based analysis in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario, despite the increasing prevalence of Parkinson's disease (PD), barriers to access-to-care for people with Parkinson's disease (PwP) and their caregivers are not well understood. The objective of this study is to examine spatial patterns of health care utilization among PwP and identify factors associated with PD-related health care utilization of individuals in Ontario. We employed a retrospective, population-based study design involving administrative health data to identify PwP as of March 31, 2018 (N = 35,482) using a previously validated case definition. An enhanced 2-step floating catchment area method was used to measure spatial accessibility to PD care and a descriptive spatial analysis was conducted to describe health service utilization by geographic area and specialty type. Negative binomial regression models were then conducted to identify associated geographic, socioeconomic, comorbidity and demographic factors. There was marked spatial variability in PD-related service utilization, with neurology and all provider visits being significantly higher in urban areas (CMF>1.20; p<0.05) and family physician visits being significantly higher (CMF >1.20; p<0.05) in more rural areas and remote areas. More frequent visits to family physicians were associated with living in rural areas, while less frequent visitation was associated with living in areas of low spatial accessibility with high ethnic concentration. Visits to neurologists were positively associated with living in areas of high spatial accessibility and with high ethnic concentration. Visits to all providers were also positively associated with areas of high spatial accessibility. For all outcomes, less frequent visits were found in women, older people, and those living in more deprived areas as years living with PD increased. This study demonstrates the importance of geographic, socioeconomic and individual factors in determining PwP's likelihood of accessing care and type of care provided. Our results can be expected to inform the development of policies and patient care models aimed at improving accessibility among diverse populations of PwP.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".