MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105983940 · doi:10.7939/83098

Public Health Unit Funding Per Capita and Type 2 Diabetes Among Adults in Ontario in 2013/14

2025· dissertation· en· W7105983940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthPer capitaUnit (ring theory)Population healthPopulationType 2 diabetesHealth equityPer capita incomeEquity (law)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Type 2 diabetes is one of the biggest public health concerns. Area-level and individual-level risk factors can influence the likelihood of an individual developing the disease. In recent years, there have been observational studies in the United States, and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom, on the potential benefits public health funding can have on population health outcomes. Very few studies have looked at this relationship from a Canadian context, with none examining type 2 diabetes as the health outcome. This study will examine the estimated association between public health unit funding per capita and type 2 diabetes risk, and whether an increase in public health unit funding per capita can help improve health equity across income groups. Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized data from the 2013/14 cycle from the Canadian Community Health Survey, an annual population survey from Statistics Canada. Public Health Unit funding data was provided from the 2013 Public Health Funding Model for Mandatory Programs report. Per capita funding figures were created by utilizing the Canadian Census Population Estimates from 2011. To analyze the association between public health unit funding and risk for type 2 diabetes, multilevel logistic regression modelling was utilized via a step-up approach. Cross-level interaction for household income and PHU funding per capita was also tested to examine heterogeneity in the association across sociodemographic groups. Results: The relationship found between public health unit funding and type 2 diabetes was statistically non-significant, with an increase in odds for type 2 diabetes in the fully adjusted model (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.34). Cross-level interaction on PHU funding per capita and household income in the final model showed a statistically non-significant association for all income levels except for those at $40,000 to $60,000 (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.94). Only the $20,000 to $40,000 income group had an odds ratio over one in the fully adjusted model (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.40). Conclusion: Contrary to previous literature, public health unit funding per capita was associated with an increase in odds for type 2 diabetes among adults in Ontario in 2013/14. However, the findings also showed that there might be a potential protective effect with PH funding per capita among those at lower income levels. Further research should be undertaken to have a clearer idea of the relationship between public health funding and type 2 diabetes.

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)0.003
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207