MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410742451 · doi:10.2196/64464

Factors Influencing Physicians' Referral Decision-Making for Rehabilitation Outpatient Services in the Health Care Landscape of China: Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4410742451 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Yawei Li, Ruixue Ye, Zeyu Zhang, Yingzi Hao, Yucong Zou, Yulong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralMedicineRehabilitationStratified samplingFamily medicineHealth careTriageDiseaseOutpatient clinicCross-sectional studyAmbulatory careMedical emergencyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Stratified health care systems are used globally to optimize medical resource allocation and enhance patient care experiences. Although successfully implemented in countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, China's introduction of stratified health care in 2015 has achieved progress in disease management but still faces challenges due to the lack of a comprehensive referral evaluation system and patients' preference for higher-tier medical institutions. Objective: This study aims to investigate the factors influencing Chinese rehabilitation physicians' referral decisions for outpatient rehabilitation patients. The findings may provide empirical evidence for developing stratified rehabilitation triage tools and constructing a referral evaluation system in China. Methods: This cross-sectional study, conducted from September 2023 to January 2024, examined the patient factors (diagnosis, functional impairments, disease status, condition stability, duration of illness, and functional status measured via the Longshi Scale) impacting physicians' referral decisions for outpatient rehabilitation services in China. Data were collected through convenient stratified sampling from physicians and outpatient rehabilitation patients across 12 medical institutions in 5 cities in China. Results: A total of 131 rehabilitation physicians conducted diversion assessments for 1984 outpatient rehabilitation patients in this study. In total, 45.5% (902/1984) of outpatient rehabilitation patients were considered by physicians to be referred to rehabilitation outpatient clinics, 19% (376/1984) to primary health care institutions, 20.4% (405/1984) to secondary institutions, and 15.2% (301/1984) to tertiary institutions. Single-factor analysis indicated that age, disease, functional impairment, disease control, disease stability, and Longshi Scale results were significantly associated with physicians' decisions regarding the referral institutions for outpatient rehabilitation patients. Logistic regression analysis showed that neurological disorders (odds ratio [OR] 1.88, 95% CI 1.02-3.43; P=.04), cardiopulmonary diseases (OR 2.91, 95% CI 1.07-7.93; P=.04), geriatric conditions (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.68; P<.001), disease control (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13-0.34; P<.001), and Longshi Scale results for the bedridden (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.14-0.34; P<.001), and domestic groups (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.34; P<.001) as independent factors for referrals to tertiary versus primary institutions. Orthopedic diseases (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.89-5.67; P<.001), geriatric conditions (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33-1.87; P=.009), cognitive impairments (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.17-3.36; P=.01), multiple impairments (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.70; P=.002), and disease control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15-0.37; P<.001) were key factors for tertiary versus secondary referrals. Conclusions: In advancing China's rehabilitation triage in the future, gaining a deep understanding of the key factors influencing physicians' decisions and quickly establishing a referral evaluation system will facilitate the accurate diversion of outpatient rehabilitation patients, enabling them to receive convenient, high-quality, and low-cost medical services. In addition, it will assist the government in reasonably and effectively allocating medical resources, thus achieving the optimization and coordination of the health care system.

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)0.002
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.422 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207