MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133027925

Research on Competition in the Health Care Industry

2023· dissertation· W7133027925 on OpenAlexaff
Zixuan Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careCompetition (biology)PharmacyQuality (philosophy)Ambulatory careInpatient careOutpatient clinicDrug prices
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the role of competition in the health care sector has been extensively explored in developed countries, evidence from China is limited. This dissertation comprised three research projects that examined the health consequences of competition in the health care industry in China: 1) to explore the impacts of pharmacy competition on drug expenditures by individuals who purchased drugs for influenza at pharmacies from 2015 to 2019 in Changde city, Hunan province, China; 2) to assess the impacts of hospital competition on the quality of outpatient care for individuals who had outpatient visits at hospitals for influenza from 2015 to 2019 in Changde city, Hunan province, China; and 3) to compare the impacts of hospital competition by hospital-type on the quality of inpatient care for individuals who were admitted for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at hospitals in the fourth quarter of 2017 and 2019 in Sichuan province, China. This dissertation demonstrated that: 1) pharmacy competition was associated with a decline in annual average influenza-specific drug expenditures by individuals with influenza; 2) hospital competition contributed to an increase in the quality of outpatient care for outpatients with influenza; and 3) the impacts of hospital competition on the quality of inpatient care for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease depended on the quality measure used and on hospital-type. These findings jointly have implications for the design of health policies and efforts to both enhance the quality of healthcare services and to control healthcare expenditures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207