MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412630433 · doi:10.1177/10775587251355671

The Impact of Rural Hospital Closures and Mergers on Health System Ecologies: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4412630433 on OpenAlexafffund
Alison Coates, Janice Probst, Kanika Sarwal, Suhaib Riaz, Agnes Grudniewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care Research and Review · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWorkforceBusinessHealthcare systemHealth careEconomic growthMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite playing a pivotal role in rural community health services delivery and in local economies, rural hospitals in the United States have closed or merged with larger health networks at alarming rates. This scoping review examines what is known about the impacts of rural hospital closures and mergers since 2010. Using the literature, we inductively derived a new Health System Ecologies Impact Matrix research tool to assess knowledge related to health system changes. Most of the included studies examined closures, primarily reporting on community impacts. Knowledge gaps remain related to financial-, workforce-, and utilization-related outcomes, and little is known about impacts on neighboring hospitals and communities. Few studies report effects of rural hospital mergers, primarily focusing on financial and utilization outcomes for the merged hospital. No studies examined the impacts of rural hospital mergers on patients or individuals and their social environments.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Care Research and ReviewSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207