MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411938987 · doi:10.1007/s10198-025-01791-6

Trends in physical and mental health needs across generations in Australia

2025· article· en· W4411938987 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrina Lenzen, Luke B. Connelly, William Whittaker, Stephen Birch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Journal of Health Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsMental healthDemographyCohortCohort effectGerontologyMedicineMental health serviceIncidence (geometry)DiseasePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite evidence of changes in age-specific incidence and prevalence rates for chronic conditions and disease, future health resource planning is often based on historical age- and gender-specific service use, neglecting changes in the need for care within age groups between generations. This paper studies differences in health needs by age and gender across birth cohorts in Australia and considers the implications for future health service planning. Whilst controlling for age and period effects, we find that more recent-born female birth cohorts have higher prevalence rates of long-term health conditions than earlier-born cohorts, whereas we don't find an effect for males. The increase for females corresponds with an increase in probable mental disorders, and while we also find an increase in probable mental disorders among males, decreases in physical impairment rates among both genders offset the overall rates of long-term health conditions among males but not among females, where increases in probable mental disorders are larger. Comparing projections of mental health service requirements that integrate cohort effects, as opposed to those that do not, shows that traditional planning models may underestimate health service requirements for the future. Our findings suggest that health service planners should relax assumptions about constant age-specific 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Journal of Health EconomicsSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207