Socioeconomic inequity in the utilization of healthcare among people with eating disorders in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about socioeconomic equity in access to healthcare among people with eating disorders in Australia. This study aims to measure the extent of inequity in eating disorder-related healthcare utilization, analyze trends, and explore the sources of inequalities using New South Wales (NSW) administrative linked health data for 2005 to 2020. METHODS: Socioeconomic inequities were measured using concentration index approach, and decomposition analysis was conducted to explain the factors accounting for inequality. Healthcare utilization included: public inpatient admissions, private inpatient admissions, visits to public mental health outpatient clinics and emergency department visits, with three different measures (probability of visit, total and conditional number of visits) for each outcome. RESULTS: Private hospital admissions due to eating disorders were concentrated among individuals from higher socioeconomic status (SES) from 2005 to 2020. There was no significant inequity in the probability of public hospital admissions for the same period. Public outpatient visits were utilized more by people from lower SES from 2008 to 2020. Emergency department visits were equitable, but more utilized by those from lower SES in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Public hospital and emergency department services were equitably used by people with eating disorders in NSW, but individuals from high SES were more likely to be admitted to private hospitals for eating disorder care. Use of public hospital outpatient services was higher for those from lower SES. These findings can assist policymakers in understanding the equity of the healthcare system and developing programs to improve fairness in eating disorder-related healthcare in NSW.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".