MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982386367

Impact of eGFR reporting on health care utilization in Ontario

2011· article· en· W6982386367 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKidney diseaseRenal functionNephrologyHealth carePopulationPublic healthAmbulatory care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this thesis was to determine the impact of eGFR reporting on health care utilization in Ontario. There were two main aims of this thesis 1) to assess the impact or eGFR reporting on nephrology consults and 2) to assess the impact of eGFR reporting on kidney protective medication usage.\nSome clinicians believe chronic kidney disease (CKD) is under-recognized in the community. As a result, many outpatient laboratories now report the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in addition to serum creatinine as a measure of kidney function. In January 2006, all outpatient laboratories in the province of Ontario, Canada began reporting eGFR. We linked health administrative data for more than 8 million adults of age 25 years or older from January, 1999 to September, 2007. We conducted a population-based intervention analysis with seasonal time-series modeling to examine secular trends in the number and type of patients seen by nephrologists. Compared to the pre-eGFR period, the number of patients seen in consultation by nephrologists increased after eGFR reporting [percentage increase of 24% (95% Cl 16 - 31%); absolute increase of 2.9 consults per 100,000 adult population (95% Cl 2.5 - 3.4)]. This translated into an increase of about 23 consults per nephrologist per year. The greatest increases were seen in women (percentage increase of 39%, 95% Cl 28 - 51%) and the elderly, age > 80 years (percentage increase of 58%, 95% Cl 35 - 80%). eGFR reporting was associated with a sudden increase in the number of nephrology consults seen in Ontario. This increase was especially prominent amongst women and the elderly, populations who some believe are\nunder-recognized as having CKD.\nSome patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in whom angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-ll receptor blockers are recommended do not receive these medications (collectively referred to as RAAS-Blockers). We considered whether RAAS-Blocker use increases amongst CKD patients after the introduction of eGFR reporting. In January 2006, all outpatient laboratories in the province of Ontario, Canada began reporting eGFR. We performed a population-based intervention analysis with seasonal time-series modeling for the period of January 2003 to April 2008. We linked health administrative data for adults living in south western Ontario. For our primary outcome we considered RAAS-Blocker usage amongst 45 361 ambulatory residents with CKD (eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73m2). The introduction of eGFR reporting was associated with a significant increase in the use of RAAS-Blockers. Just prior to eGFR reporting the prescription rate was 571 per 1000 CKD patients; by early 2008 the rate had increased to 607 per 1000 CKD patients. According to the model, the increase in RAAS- Blocker use attributable to eGFR reporting was 19 per 1000 CKD patients (p=0.034). These\niii\nresults suggest eGFR reporting contributes to improved, guideline appropriate, care of patients with CKD. Estimating that 8% of the adult population has CKD, for every 10 million adults this means about 15 200 new patients are treated with RAAS Blockers by one year after the introduction of eGFR reporting in community laboratories.\nIn summary, in Ontario eGFR reporting was associated with an increase in consults, particularly among elderly and female patients. Also, it was associated with more CKD patients using renal- protective medications. Although these two finding suggest that there may be benefit to its introduction, further studies are need to determine if these changes actually result in clinical improvements.

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)0.008
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.054 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207