MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6989993521

Comprehensive Needs Assessment for Deep Brain Stimulation in Canada, A Health Service Research Perspective

2024· dissertation· en· W6989993521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationReferralHealth careStakeholderMovement disordersService (business)Service delivery frameworkHealthcare delivery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Canadian healthcare system is subject to national standards that may be challenging to meet, given the evolution and integration of technology in healthcare in disciplines like functional neurosurgery, utilizing therapies such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), whereby implanted devices have provided benefit for patients with movement disorders. A comprehensive assessment of the need for this service to match with the delivery of DBS has not been performed. This thesis comprises a series of studies that aim to address this knowledge gap through the quadruple aim of health service research. METHODS: The first study is a systematic review and meta-analysis including economic evaluations comparing DBS for movement disorders with medical management only. The second is a mixed methods survey of Canadian stakeholders for DBS. The final study is a nationwide retrospective cohort study of DBS patients from 2019-2022 to determine factors that may influence access. RESULTS: Through analysis of 14 economic evaluations, DBS appears to be a cost-effective treatment when considered across the remaining lifespan of the patient with positive incremental net benefit for DBS with a mean difference of 40,504.81USD (95% CI 2,422.42; 78,587.19). Additionally, 220 responses from all DBS stakeholder groups revealed that costs associated with travel, waitlists, lack of specific resources, poor understanding of movement disorders and DBS indications, and referral pathways were barriers to accessing DBS. Finally, preliminary results identified 162 DBS patients. Potential factors that may increase access to DBS were indication (Parkinson’s disease), higher socioeconomic status, and race. CONCLUSIONS: While DBS is a cost-effective therapy for patients with movement disorders, the current delivery of this service needs significant improvement. This includes improved education, streamlined referral pathways, and policy change at a governmental level, with further investigation to determine regions of the country where need for DBS far exceeds current access.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0150.027
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→