Characterizing the impact of a novel electronic consultation platform on access to Hepatitis C treatment in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to Hepatitis C (HCV) treatment requires a specialist referral in Manitoba, Canada, with specialist availability posing barriers to HCV care. This work assessed the impact of eConsult, an electronic platform that enables Primary Care Providers (PCPs) to access specialist advice, potentially reducing face-to-face patient visits. This single case study was conducted at Nine Circles Community Health Centre in Winnipeg. Charts of individuals referred via traditional pathways (Dec. 2016-Dec. 2017) and eConsult (Dec. 2017 - Dec. 2019) were reviewed, and stakeholder interviews were conducted with PCPs and an HCV specialist. Compared to traditional referrals, eConsult patients were more likely to link to specialist care (100% vs. 69%, P = 0.026) and complete HCV treatment (79% vs. 36%, P = 0.049). The use of eConsult may improve access to HCV care in Manitoba, with outcomes shaped by system agility, adaptability across contexts, and the altruism of healthcare providers who support its use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".