Sense of belonging to community and avoidable hospitalization: a population-based cohort study of 456,415 Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sense of belonging to a community is a dimension of subjective well-being that is of growing population health interest. We evaluated sex-stratified associations between community belonging and risk of avoidable hospitalization. Adult men and women from the Canadian Community Health Survey (2000-2014) were asked to rate their sense of community belonging (N = 456,415) and were also linked to acute inpatient hospitalizations to 31 March 2018. We used Cox proportional hazards models to assess the association between community belonging and time to hospitalization related to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) and adjusted for a range of sociodemographic, health, and behavioural confounders. Compared to those who reported intermediate levels of belonging, both very weak and very strong sense of belonging were associated with greater risk of avoidable hospitalization for women (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.12, 1.47, very weak; HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03, 1.27, very strong), but not for men (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97, 1.29, very weak; HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.98, 1.19, very strong). This study suggests that community belonging is associated with risk of ACSC hospitalization for women and provides a foundation for further research on community belonging and population health.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".