Reporting a regular medical doctor index: A new measure of patient-physician affiliation for health administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having a regular medical doctor is associated with better process of care and health outcomes. The goal of this study was to harness the richness in health administrative data to create a measure which accurately predicted whether patients self-identified as having a regular medical doctor. The Canadian Community Health Survey (2007-2012) was linked with health administrative data (HAD) (2002-2012) from Quebec, Canada's second largest province. The Canadian Community Health Survey includes respondents' answer to whether they have a regular medical doctor, but health administrative data does not. We therefore used LASSO and Random Forests to build prediction models that predict whether a patient reports having a regular medical doctor using their data only available in the HAD. Our results show that predicting patient responses to 'do you have a regular medical doctor?' using an average of single-year Usual Provider Continuity over 3 years results in an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.782 (0.778-0.787). This was almost a 14% improvement in predictive accuracy compared to the frequently used single-year Usual Provider Continuity (0.688 (0.683-0.694)). We have called this new measure the Reporting a Regular Medical Doctor (RRMD) index. The RRMD index is easy to implement in HAD, is an elegant solution to the difficulties associated with low-users having unstable UPC scores, and brings a patient-oriented perspective to previous efforts to capture patient-physician affiliations in HAD. We recommend that researchers seeking to measure whether patients have a regular medical doctor using HAD consider using the RRMD index.
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 | 0.013 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".