MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410984495 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0324898

Association of physician-delivered virtual care near the end of life with healthcare use outcomes: A national population-based study of Canadians

2025· article· en· W4410984495 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohammed Rashidul Anwar, Rabia Akhter, Thérèse A. Stukel, Hannah Chung, Chaim M. Bell, James Downar, Nathan M. Stall, Peter Tanuseputro, Aynharan Sinnarajah, Sandra Peterson, Asmita Bhattarai, John Knight, Kieran L. Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's UniversityMemorial University of NewfoundlandBruyèreUniversity of OttawaSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHealth careMedicineEnd-of-life careAssociation (psychology)MEDLINEPopulationGerontologyFamily medicineNursingEnvironmental healthPsychologyBiologyPalliative care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The last 90 days of life are marked by high healthcare utilization in acute care settings, often conflicting with the preference to remain at home. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of virtual care, but its impact on healthcare utilization near the end-of-life remains unclear. This study assessed the association between physician-delivered virtual care use near the end-of-life and acute healthcare utilization, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across four Canadian provinces. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study using linked health administrative data from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, across British Columbia (BC), Alberta (AB), Ontario (ON), and Newfoundland & Labrador (NFLD). The study included 548,955 adult decedents who died within the study period. Virtual care use in the last 90 days of life, categorized by pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, was the primary exposure. Primary outcomes were rates of ED visits, hospitalizations, and in-hospital deaths during the last 90 days of life. Modified Poisson regression models were used to measure associations, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among the 548,955 decedents, virtual care utilization during the pandemic varied by province, ranging from 53% in NFLD to 78% in BC. During the pandemic, virtual care was associated with higher ED visits (adjusted rate ratios [aRateRs] ranging from 1.12 to 1.72) and hospitalizations (aRateRs: ranging from 1.01 to 1.59) in most provinces. Virtual care was linked to a higher risk of in-hospital death in AB (adjusted risk ratios [aRiskR]: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.08-1.14; P < 0.001) and ON (aRiskR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.05; P < 0.001). Pre-pandemic, associations were weaker, with virtual care linked to lower in-hospital death rates in ON, AB and BC. CONCLUSION: Virtual care during the pandemic was linked to increased acute healthcare utilization, contrasting with pre-pandemic patterns when it appeared more selective and associated with fewer in-hospital deaths. Findings highlight the evolving role of virtual care and the need for region-specific policies to optimize end-of-life care delivery.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→