Across time and space: variations in hospital use during Canadian health reform.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate change in hospital utilization in a population and to discuss analytical strategies using large administrative databases, focusing on variations in rates of different types of hospital utilization by income quintile neighborhoods. DATA SOURCES: Hospital discharge abstracts from Manitoba Health, used to study the changes in utilization rates over eight fiscal years (1989-1996). STUDY DESIGN: We test the hypotheses that health reform has changed utilization rates, that utilization rates differ significantly across income quintiles (defined by the relative affluence of neighborhood of residence), and that these variations have been maintained over time. Our approach uses generalized estimating equations to produce robust and consistent results for studying rates of recurrent and nonrecurrent events longitudinally. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Rates of individuals hospitalized, hospital discharges, days of hospitalization, and hospitalization for different types of medical conditions and surgical procedures are generated for the period April 1, 1989 through March 31, 1997 for residents of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Data are grouped according to the individual's age, gender, and neighborhood of residence on April 1 of each of the eight fiscal years for the rate calculations. Neighborhood of residence and the 1991 Canadian Census public use database are used to assign individuals to income quintiles. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The substitution of outpatient surgery for inhospital surgery accounted for much of the change in hospital utilization over the 1989-1996 period. Health care reform did not have a significant effect on the utilization gradient already observed across socioeconomic groups. Health reform markedly accelerated declines in in-hospital utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Grouping the data with key characteristics intact facilitates the statistical analysis of utilization measures previously difficult to study. Such analyses of variations across time and space based on parametric models allows adjustment for continuous covariates and is more efficient than the traditional nonparametric approach using standardized rates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".