MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402391614 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v9i5.2702

Minor Ailments and Pharmacist Management in Ontario, Canada: Attachment and Primary Care

2024· article· en· W4402391614 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Dolovich, Paul L. Nguyen, Yasmin Abdul Aziz, Mina Tadrous, Ernie Avilla, Annalise Mathers, Eliot Frymire, Rick Glazier, Kamila Premji, Liisa Jaakkimainen, Tara Kiran, Lynn Roberts, Michael Green

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistPrimary careMinor (academic)MedicineFamily medicineNursingPharmacyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minor ailments (MA) are health conditions that can be managed with minimal prescribed treatment and/or self-care strategies. In Ontario, Canada, pharmacists were given authority to deliver service for thirteen MAs on January 1, 2023, with an additional six MAs on October 1, 2023. This study aims to identify patterns of MA service provision and describe characteristics of recipients of MA services. A cross-sectional analysis of linked health administrative data, including pharmacist billing for MA services, patient demographics, and physician and hospital billing data, was conducted. Delivery of MA services prescribed in Ontario from January 1 to December 31, 2023 were analyzed with key demographics (age, sex, income, new arrival status, comorbidity), health care utilization (ED, hospitalization) and primary care attachment. In 2023, 547,673 (3.6%) Ontario residents received at least one MA service, with the top 5 services being urinary tract infections (199,282), conjunctivitis (153,021), herpes labialis (46,659), allergic rhinitis (41,521), and dermatitis (39,365). Compared to all Ontario residents, the MA service recipients were more likely to be people with a higher rate of ED visits (41.7% vs. 32.4%), comorbidities (17.5% vs. 9.7%), higher incomes (highest income quintile, 23.1% vs. 20.1%; lowest income quintile, 16.5% vs. 19.4%), and hospitalizations (23.6% vs. 17.6%), and less likely to be newcomers to Ontario (8.7% vs. 13.1%). They were more likely to be attached to a primary care provider (91.3% vs. 84.7%). This study provides insight into early users of this program, and sheds light on those with systemic vulnerabilities and equity deserving groups.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207