MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162121982 · doi:10.82308/15428

Factors associated with primary health care contacts by the elderly population in groups of family doctors in Quebec, Canada

2017· dissertation· en· W7162121982 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Bakry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryPrimary carePopulationHealth careDescriptive statisticsPrimary health careDescriptive researchGee

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION The aging population in Quebec, combined with the chronic disease rise, has increased the health care service use among the elderly population. Therefore, elderly care has largely relied on primary health care (PHC) providers as they are best positioned to care for such population. This influx of PHC physician contacts, both face-to-face and virtual, has become a concern due to the limited PHC physician resources. As such, a clear understanding of the factors contributing to PHC contacts by the elderly population is needed. OBJECTIVES To identify the factors contributing to the number of PHC contacts by the elderly population in Quebec family medicine groups, or Groupes de Medecine de Famille (GMF). METHODS In a cross-sectional design, two main data sources were used: 1) A chart review from the Alzheimer's Plan Evaluation Study provided patient-level factors and the number of PHC contacts. 2) The Quebec Ministry of Health information pertaining to GMF-level factors. A total of 1,919 patients were randomly selected. Eligibility criteria included patients aged 75+ years with a minimum of one PHC contact in a 9-month period. Descriptive analyses of independent variables and the study outcome were performed. Generalized Estimating Equations; GEE models were used to analyze correlated data with binary, discrete, or continuous outcomes. RESULTS Descriptive results:Males represented 40% (768 patients) of the study population. Patient age ranged from 75.0 to 104.0 (mean=81.7, SD=5.0) years. Patients aged 75.0-79.9, 80.0-84.9, and 85+ represented 44.1%, 30.5%, and 25.4% of the population, respectively. Nearly half (49.7%) lived with the family, whereas 20% lived alone. A total of 22,221 medications were retrieved from patient charts to identify chronic diseases. Of those medications, 16,336 were matched to 21 chronic diseases. The number of chronic and non-chronic disease medications ranged from 0 to 33 (mean=8.5, SD=5.3) and 0 to 17 (mean=3.0, SD=2.5) respectively. The number of chronic diseases identified ranged from 0 to 17 (mean=5.7, SD=2.9).Elderly proportion among total registered patients ranged from 7% to 17% (mean=12.1%, SD=3.4%). The number of patients per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)-physician and FTE-RN ranged from 816 to 2,115 (mean=1,244, SD=439) and from 3,218 to 14,193 (mean 8,048.9, SD=3,909.5), respectively. The number of sites within GMFs ranged from 1 to 8 (mean=3.25, SD=2.5). GMF years of operation ranged from 2.2 to 11 years (mean=7.6, SD=3.0). In terms of the study outcome, total PHC contacts ranged from 1 to 81 (mean=4.4, SD=5.1).GEE results:The "oldest old‟ population group (85+) showed a statistically significant 16.4% increase in PHC contact incidence. Likewise, each additional chronic disease showed an 11% increase in the incidence of PHC contacts. The proportion of elderly population showed a 4.5% decrease in PHC contact incidence for each additional 1% of elderly patients. The number of physicians per FTE physician had a 1.6% decrease in the PHC contact incidence for each additional physician. Moreover, Université Laval-affiliated GMF sites had a 60% higher PHC contact incidence compared to Université de Sherbrooke, our reference (p=0.001). Likewise, public GMFs had an 18.2% lower PHC contact incidence than mixed GMFs. CONCLUSION This study provides an evidence-based description of the delivery of PHC contacts among the elderly. Study findings can guide GMF managers and health policy makers, and assist in the development of well-informed staffing, budgetary plans, and decisions in Quebec.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→