Healthcare Disparities Among Older Adults: Exploring Social Determinants of Health and Cognition Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose was to investigate the impact of sociodemographic factors on healthcare utilization among adults with different cognition levels (normal and impairment/dementia). Methods: We used cross-sectional data from the Health and Retirement Study (N=17,698) to assess healthcare utilization: hospital stay, nursing home stay, hospice care, and doctor visits. Results: A cohort comparison between normal and dementia/impaired cognition groups revealed significant differences. The dementia/impaired group had lower education levels, higher single/widowed status, and more racial and ethnic minorities. They experienced longer hospital and nursing home stays, varied doctor visit frequencies, and had higher mean age, greater loneliness scores, and lower family social support scores. Differences in hospitalization, nursing home, hospice care, and doctor visits were influenced by factors such as race, age, marital status, education, and rurality. Conclusion: There were disparities in healthcare utilization based on participants' characteristics and cognition levels, especially in terms of race/ethnicity, education, and rural location.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".