MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414398081 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.250166

Changes in driving distance to specialist physicians in the era of virtual care: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4414398081 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Andrea Evans, Eyal Cohen, Thérèse A. Stukel, Zharmaine Ante, Xuesong Wang, Tharani Raveedran, Peter Gozdyra, Natasha Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReferralCohort studyCohortPrimary carePatient referralMEDLINEHuman factors and ergonomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Whether virtual health care has changed access to services for patients living far from a specialist physician is unknown. We aimed to determine whether driving distances between patients and their specialists had changed following increased availability of virtual care in Ontario, such that specialists saw patients from farther away. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study using linked health and administrative databases. We included all specialist physicians working in Ontario from Jan. 1, 2019, to Nov. 30, 2019 (pre-virtual care period) and from Jan. 1, 2022, to Nov. 30, 2022 (virtual care period), and their patients. Outcomes were measures of proximity between specialists and their patients including differences in 90th-percentile driving distance, mean driving time, and the proportion of patients with driving times longer than 60 minutes between time periods. We used multivariable linear regression models to compare outcomes across physician specialties, adjusting for physician age, sex, practice size, and location. RESULTS: We included 11 096 specialists (4232 surgical and 6864 medical; 0.8% rural). After adjustment, we found no meaningful changes in the 90th-percentile driving distance between time periods for surgical (difference 6.7 km, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.1 km to 17.5 km) or medical specialties (difference 1.3 km, 95% CI -6.6 km to 9.2 km). For surgical specialists, the proximity measures of mean driving time increased by 5 minutes (95% CI 1 min to 10 min) and the proportion of patients living more than 60 minutes away increased by 2.1% (95% CI 0.7% to 3.9%), but we saw no significant change for medical specialists. INTERPRETATION: After expansion of virtual care, the distance between specialists and patients did not meaningfully change. To make virtual care more accessible, especially for those living in rural areas, attention should be paid to other factors such as referral patterns and the role of patients in determining the type of visit they prefer.

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)0.002
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 score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→