MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413985008 · doi:10.1111/jgs.70066

A Meta‐Analysis of Sex‐Based Differences in Health Service Use for Persons Living With Dementia Between 2018 and 2020 in Four Canadian Provinces

2025· review· en· W4413985008 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maria Alejandra Rodriguez Duarte, Isabelle Vedel, Deniz Cetin‐Sahin, Ilhem Bousbiat, Claire Godard‐Sebillotte, Nadia Sourial, Laura C. Maclagan, Christina Diong, Susan E. Bronskill, Dallas Seitz, Louis Rochette, Victoria Massamba, Jacqueline Quail, Geneviève Arsenault‐Lapierre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCanadian Rural Health Research SocietyMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalSaskatchewan Health Quality CouncilMcGill University Health CentreJewish General Hospital
FundersToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health NetworkAlzheimer SocietyCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissementMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineDementiaCohortDemographyHealth careCohort studyEmergency departmentGerontologyPopulationRetrospective cohort studyAmbulatoryFamily medicineEnvironmental healthDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ensuring equitable healthcare services for persons with dementia is of utmost importance. Recent evidence points to sex-based differences in healthcare use in this population. However, available evidence is based on data from limited geographic regions and predates the COVID-19 pandemic, which is said to have further magnified disparities. This study aims to estimate sex-based differences in ambulatory and acute care service use in persons with dementia in four Canadian provinces between 2018 and 2020. METHODS: A retrospective multicohort design was conducted using linked health administrative data from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Three cohorts (2018, 2019, and 2020) of community-dwelling persons aged 65 and older with dementia were identified. Within each cohort, rates of sex-stratified outcomes were calculated (per 10,000 person-years). The outcomes were visits to family physicians, cognitive specialists, other specialists, all-cause emergency departments, and all-cause hospitalizations. Estimates of the incidence rate difference (IRD) between males and females within each cohort year for each outcome were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. RESULTS: The 2018, 2019, and 2020 cohorts included 97,811, 100,316, and 103,638 females, respectively. Similarly, 64,628, 67,013, and 69,839 males were included in the same respective cohorts. We found sex differences in ambulatory and acute care use in all three cohorts. Compared to females, males with dementia had higher rates of other specialists' visits, emergency department visits, and all-cause hospitalizations, with significant IRDs during the three cohort years. CONCLUSION: Consistent sex differences in healthcare use by persons with dementia were observed before and during the pandemic in four Canadian provinces, especially in acute care. This emphasizes the need to address sex-based differences in dementia care, ultimately working toward ensuring equitable and tailored healthcare services to enhance the quality of care and experiences for all persons with dementia.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.042
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→