MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404685990 · doi:10.1370/afm.3181

Health Care Utilization After a Visit to a Within-Group Family Physician vs a Walk-In Clinic Physician

2024· article· en· W4404685990 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Salahub, Peter C. Austin, Li Bai, Simon Berthelot, R. Sacha Bhatia, Cherryl Bird, Laura Desveaux, Tara Kiran, Aïsha Lofters, Danielle Martin, Kerry McBrien, Rita McCracken, J. Michael Paterson, Bahram Rahman, Jennifer Shuldiner, Mina Tadrous, Niels Thakkar, Noah Ivers, Lauren Lapointe‐Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Family Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioMinistry of Health and Long Term CareMinistry of HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of CalgarySunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalImpactWomen's College HospitalTrillium Health CentreUniversité LavalOntario Drug Policy Research NetworkSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily medicineMedicineWalk-inAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Primary care access is a key health system metric, but little research has compared models to provide primary care access when one's regular physician is not available. We compared health system use after a visit with a patient's own family physician group (ie, within-group physician who was not the patient's primary physician) vs a visit with a walk-in clinic physician who was not part of the patient's family physician group. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, including all individuals formally enrolled with a family physician, from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. We compared those visiting within-group physicians to those visiting walk-in clinic physicians using propensity score matching to account for differences in patient characteristics. The primary outcome was any emergency department visit within 7 days of the initial visit. RESULTS: Matched patients who visited a within-group physician (N = 506,033) were 10% less likely to visit an emergency department in the 7 days after the initial visit compared to patients who saw a walk-in clinic physician (N = 506,033; 20,117 [4.0%] vs 22,320 [4.4%]; risk difference [RD] 0.4%; 95% CI 0.4-0.5; relative risk [RR] 0.90; 95% CI, 0.89-0.92). Restricting to visits occurring on weekends, the observed association was stronger (7,964 [3.7%] vs 10,055 [4.7%]; RD 1.0%; 95% CI 0.9-1.1; RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82). Those accessing after-hours within-group physician visits were more likely to have ≥1 additional virtual or in-person within-group physician visit within 7 days (virtual RR 1.86, in-person RR 1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to visiting a walk-in clinic physician, seeing a within-group physician after hours might decrease downstream emergency department visits. This finding could be explained by better continuity of care and can inform primary care service models and the policies that support them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Family MedicineSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207