MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7092528293 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/86g25

Analyzing impact of the provincial COVID-19 health coverage directives on healthcare access and outcomes for patients without public insurance: Secondary data analysis of hospital data

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePsychological interventionPandemicPublic healthMedical diagnosisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health insurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has found that emergency room data can reveal patterns of delayed care, such that people without health insurance arrive at emergency rooms sicker, are less likely to be admitted, and are more likely to die (Hynie et al., 2016). This study will use a similar data analytic strategy to explore healthcare access and outcomes. Data collected by the Canadian Institutes for Health Information from hospitals in the three provinces will be requested in order to explore 1) the main presenting complaints and illness severity of emergency room visits by insurance status, age, and gender and 2) patterns of hospital admissions by insurance status, age, and gender. In an effort to understand how COVID directives regarding healthcare coverage impacted both health access and health outcomes, these patterns will be compared between the two years prior to the COVID pandemic (April, 2018 to March, 2020) and the two first years of the COVID pandemic (April 2020 to March 2022) for the three provinces. Specifically, we predict that patients without health insurance will show different patterns of healthcare access across the 4 years in the three provinces as a function of the implementation of the healthcare directives Controlling for age and gender, we predict that: All provinces will show those without insurance arrive in ER with more serious triage, more injuries, more mental health problems and more pregnancy related issues than those with insurance. They will wait longer to be triaged and treated, have fewer and less intensive interventions for comparable diagnoses and severity, and have shorter inpatient stays. Prior to 2020, in all 3 provinces, those without insurance will be more likely to leave the ER without treatment, and be less likely to be admitted. Consistent with previous research, we expect that in all three provinces, those with ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) will be sicker on arrival to ER than those without regardless of insurance status EXCEPT that for children (under 18) uninsured with ACSCs will have more serious health status In all provinces, those without insurance will be sicker at the point of admission to the hospital than those with insurance In 2020 and 2021, in Ontario only, the differences between insured and uninsured patients will decrease in terms of likelihood of leaving ER without treatment, dying in ER, being admitted to hospital, type and intensity of intervention and length of stay. Exploratory questions will include: whether there are changes in Ontario post 2020 in severity on arrival, length of wait times, severity of those presenting with ACSC, and whether there are greater differences between those with and without insurance by region (urban versus rural).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0130.014
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.393 · 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