Background
In 2015, 46 million people in the world had dementia; this number is expected to double every 20 years as the global population ages, reaching 131.5 million by 2050 [
1]. Up to 70% of older adults with dementia live in private community dwellings [
2] and the majority of their care is provided by primary care physicians (PCPs) [
3,
4]. Caring for older adults with dementia is complex; most have numerous medical comorbidities and are more likely to experience adverse side effects to commonly prescribed medicines [
5]. As the prevalence of dementia increases globally, PCPs and their governing bodies urgently need to understand how to structure primary care to provide older adults with dementia the care they require. Daily patient volume is a policy-sensitive aspect of primary care delivery [
6]; some jurisdictions cap the number of patients PCPs may bill for seeing each day [
7] and other regions are considering similar restrictions [
8]. The effect of PCPs’ daily patient volume on quality of dementia care is unknown.
Quality primary care for people with dementia arises from judicious provision of helpful interventions and withholding or withdrawing potentially harmful ones. PCPs with high daily patient volumes are known to spend significantly less time (8.8 versus 12.5 min per visit) with each patient, [
9] bill fewer service codes that require long visits, [
10] and rely more heavily on non-physician staff to refill prescriptions [
11] than low-volume PCPs. In keeping with Burgess’ cognitive burden framework, we hypothesized that these time pressures and organizational routines associated with increased daily patient volume would compromise PCP’s ability to partake in the “controlled processing” necessary to optimize care in complex patients with dementia [
12]. This deleterious effect of high daily patient volume on quality of primary care has been demonstrated in the management of other conditions: high-volume PCPs inappropriately prescribe antibiotics to treat viral infections at a higher rate than their low-volume counterparts; [
13,
14] they also provide lower-quality preventive care and medication management to people with asthma, angina, and diabetes than physicians who see fewer patients per day [
6,
15,
16]. Even if high-volume PCPs were able to achieve controlled processing with reduced visit length, we posit that they would have less time to have the sometimes-difficult conversations around starting or stopping medications that target the neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia [
17].
Our main objective was to determine the association between PCP’s daily patient volume and provision of quality primary care to their patients with dementia. We examined annual vaccination against influenza and cholinesterase inhibitor prescriptions as indicators of good quality care, given their favourable risk–benefit ratio in most older adults with dementia [
18,
19]. Benzodiazepine and antipsychotic prescriptions were selected as indicators of lower quality primary care because their adverse side-effect profile supports extremely stringent use in this population, [
20] despite their indication in select patients with dementia [
21]. Our secondary objective was to assess whether patients’ annual visit frequency, continuity of care, and long-term relationships with their PCP benefited patients of high-volume PCPs more than those of low-volume PCPs. Our hypothesis was that these features of the doctor-patient relationship might reduce cognitive burden in high-volume physicians and afford the controlled processing and communication time necessary to optimize complex patient care during brief office visits.
Results
Our cohort consisted of 100,256 community-living older adults with dementia (Fig.
1), among whom 58,993 (59%) were female and 40,928 (41%) were 85 years or older. People were cared for by 8,368 comprehensive PCPs (45% female) who had a median panel size of 1,281 (IQR: 856–1,790) patients. The median daily patient volume was 23 (IQR: 18–31) patients per day (Table A, Additional file
3). Patients of high-volume PCPs (≥ 30 patients per day) were more likely to come from deprived neighborhoods and live in urban settings than patients whose PCPs saw fewer than 20 patients daily (Table
1). The number of unique medications taken at index date and past-year benzodiazepine and antipsychotic use were higher among patients of high-volume PCPs. There were no significant differences in proportion of people who had been treated by psychiatrists, geriatricians or neurologists in the year prior to index date, nor were there differences in past-year rates of hospitalizations or emergency department visits. People with dementia who had high-volume PCPs had an average of 13 visits per year to their PCP, as compared with eight visits/year among patients of low-volume PCPs. During the study year, 6,950 (6.9%) of people changed PCPs, with no differences in rate of switching across daily patient volume groups (Table B, Additional file
3).
Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of 100,256 Community-living Ontarians with Dementia, by PCP’s daily patient volume
Age group |
66–69 | 2,078 (5.7%) | 1,160 (5.4%) | 822 (5.4%) | 1,659 (6.0%) | 0.01 |
70–74 | 4,034 (11.2%) | 2,270 (10.6%) | 1,704 (11.2%) | 3,310 (12.0%) | 0.03 |
75–79 | 6,373 (17.6%) | 3,800 (17.8%) | 2,607 (17.1%) | 4,960 (18.0%) | 0.01 |
80–84 | 8,768 (24.3%) | 5,310 (24.9%) | 3,691 (24.2%) | 6,782 (24.6%) | 0.01 |
85 + | 14,897 (41.2%) | 8,822 (41.3%) | 6,400 (42.0%) | 10,809 (39.3%) | 0.04 |
Sex |
Female | 21,794 (60.3%) | 12,598 (59.0%) | 8,779 (57.7%) | 15,822 (57.5%) | 0.06 |
Male | 14,356 (39.7%) | 8,764 (41.0%) | 6,445 (42.3%) | 11,698 (42.5%) | 0.06 |
Neighborhood Deprivation Index |
1—least deprived | 6,422 (17.8%) | 3,554 (16.6%) | 2,480 (16.3%) | 3,396 (12.3%) | 0.15 |
2 | 7,104 (19.7%) | 3,994 (18.7%) | 2,822 (18.5%) | 4,332 (15.7%) | 0.10 |
3 | 7,065 (19.5%) | 4,186 (19.6%) | 2,868 (18.8%) | 4,946 (18.0%) | 0.04 |
4 | 7,296 (20.2%) | 4,295 (20.1%) | 3,154 (20.7%) | 6,442 (23.4%) | 0.08 |
5—most deprived | 7,431 (20.6%) | 4,886 (22.9%) | 3,538 (23.2%) | 7,618 (27.7%) | 0.17 |
Missing data | 832 (2.3%) | 447 (2.1%) | 362 (2.4%) | 786 (2.9%) | 0.03 |
Immigrated to Ontario in past 10 years | 561 (1.6%) | 346 (1.6%) | 278 (1.8%) | 753 (2.7%) | 0.08 |
Location of dwelling |
Urban | 25,141 (69.5%) | 15,604 (73.0%) | 11,533 (75.8%) | 22,482 (81.7%) | 0.29 |
Non-urban | 7,328 (20.3%) | 4,476 (21.0%) | 3,034 (19.9%) | 4,139 (15.0%) | 0.14 |
Rural | 3,478 (9.6%) | 1,227 (5.7%) | 615 (4.0%) | 818 (3.0%) | 0.28 |
Missing data | 203 (0.6%) | 55 (0.3%) | 42 (0.3%) | 81 (0.3%) | 0.04 |
CIHI Comorbidity Group Index (2- year look-back) |
No health condition | 328 (0.9%) | 189 (0.9%) | 142 (0.9%) | 187 (0.7%) | 0.03 |
Major and palliative | 27,750 (76.8%) | 16,028 (75.0%) | 11,345 (74.5%) | 19,888 (72.3%) | 0.10 |
Moderate | 5,193 (14.4%) | 3,356 (15.7%) | 2,387 (15.7%) | 4,741 (17.2%) | 0.08 |
Minor | 2,570 (7.1%) | 1,564 (7.3%) | 1,130 (7.4%) | 2,226 (8.1%) | 0.04 |
Non-user | 309 (0.9%) | 225 (1.1%) | 220 (1.4%) | 478 (1.7%) | 0.08 |
Type of Dementia |
Alzheimer’s | 2,864 (7.9%) | 1,665 (7.8%) | 1,169 (7.7%) | 2,100 (7.6%) | 0.01 |
Vascular | 786 (2.2%) | 474 (2.2%) | 309 (2.0%) | 580 (2.1%) | 0.00 |
Other | 9,119 (25.2%) | 5,484 (25.7%) | 3,945 (25.9%) | 6,896 (25.1%) | 0.00 |
Missing data | 23,381 (64.7%) | 13,739 (64.3%) | 9,801 (64.4%) | 17,944 (65.2%) | 0.01 |
Years since dementia diagnosis |
0–1 | 14,456 (40.0%) | 8,190 (38.3%) | 5,851 (38.4%) | 10,158 (36.9%) | 0.06 |
2–9 | 19,415 (53.7%) | 11,744 (55.0%) | 8,385 (55.1%) | 15,316 (55.7%) | 0.04 |
≥ 10 | 2,279 (6.3%) | 1,428 (6.7%) | 988 (6.5%) | 2,046 (7.4%) | 0.04 |
# unique medications in use on index date |
0–5 | 7,015 (19.4%) | 4,011 (18.8%) | 2,679 (17.6%) | 4,534 (16.5%) | 0.08 |
6–9 | 8,468 (23.4%) | 4,851 (22.7%) | 3,311 (21.7%) | 5,538 (20.1%) | 0.08 |
10–19 | 15,372 (42.5%) | 9,254 (43.3%) | 6,542 (43.0%) | 12,128 (44.1%) | 0.03 |
20 + | 5,295 (14.6%) | 3,246 (15.2%) | 2,692 (17.7%) | 5,320 (19.3%) | 0.12 |
Medications taken in year prior to index date |
Cholinesterase inhibitor | 14,942 (41.3%) | 9,265 (43.4%) | 6,729 (44.2%) | 12,112 (44.0%) | 0.05 |
Benzodiazepine | 4,864 (13.5%) | 3,234 (15.1%) | 2,451 (16.1%) | 4,989 (18.1%) | 0.13 |
Antipsychotic | 5,273 (14.6%) | 3,319 (15.5%) | 2,489 (16.3%) | 5,114 (18.6%) | 0.11 |
Patient Rostering to PCP |
Not rostered | 1,728 (4.8%) | 750 (3.5%) | 759 (5.0%) | 2,061 (7.5%) | 0.11 |
Rostered | 32,192 (89.1%) | 19,052 (89.2%) | 13,228 (86.9%) | 22,998 (83.6%) | 0.16 |
Virtually rostered | 2,230 (6.2%) | 1,560 (7.3%) | 1,237 (8.1%) | 2,461 (8.9%) | 0.11 |
Physicians seen in year prior to index date |
PCP | 31,059 (85.9%) | 18,732 (87.7%) | 13,053 (85.7%) | 23,645 (85.9%) | 0.00 |
Psychiatrist or geriatric psychiatrist | 4,013 (11.1%) | 2,055 (9.6%) | 1,444 (9.5%) | 2,617 (9.5%) | 0.05 |
Geriatrician | 7,833 (21.7%) | 4,599 (21.5%) | 3,393 (22.3%) | 6,090 (22.1%) | 0.01 |
Neurologist | 5,205 (14.4%) | 2,876 (13.5%) | 2,122 (13.9%) | 3,790 (13.8%) | 0.02 |
Past-Year Hospitalizations or Emergency Department Visits | 16,655 (46.1%) | 9,567 (44.8%) | 6,920 (45.5%) | 12,377 (45.0%) | 0.02 |
Doctor-Patient Relationship Variablesb
|
• Annual number of visits to PCP | 8.24 ± 8.60 | 10.02 ± 9.96 | 10.84 ± 11.10 | 13.50 ± 15.03 | 0.43 |
• High annual PCP visit frequencyc
| 6,181 (17.1%) | 5,109 (23.9%) | 4,183 (27.5%) | 9,847 (35.8%) | 0.21 |
• Continuity of cared
| 0.73 ± 0.33 | 0.78 ± 0.31 | 0.77 ± 0.32 | 0.76 ± 0.33 | 0.11 |
• High (≥ 0.75) continuity of care | 22,755 (62.9%) | 15,069 (70.5%) | 10,570 (69.4%) | 19,052 (69.2%) | 0.13 |
• Relationship duratione
| 8.20 ± 7.15 | 9.86 ± 7.42 | 10.00 ± 7.61 | 9.31 ± 7.38 | 0.15 |
• Same PCP for ≥ 5 years | 20,991 (58.1%) | 14,128 (66.1%) | 10,047 (66.0%) | 17,603 (64.0%) | 0.12 |
High-volume PCPs were significantly different from PCPs who saw fewer than 20 patients daily: their median panel size was more than twice as large (2,002 vs 977 patients) and they were more likely to be older, male, Canadian medical graduates, and practice in urban areas (Table
2). More than three quarters (75.3%) of high-volume PCPs were remunerated on a primarily fee-for-service basis, compared to only 25.6% of low-volume PCPs.
Table 2
Characteristics of Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) Caring for Older Ontarians with Dementia
Panel Size |
Mean ± SD | 988 ± 491 | 1,425 ± 562 | 1,559 ± 646 | 2,035 ± 986 | 1.34 |
Median (IQR) | 977 (688–1,299) | 1,452 (1,094–1,805) | 1,598 (1,118–2,018) | 2,002 (1,385–2,597) | |
Physician age |
Mean ± SD | 49.9 ± 12.9 | 53.2 ± 11.9 | 54.0 ± 12.0 | 54.3 ± 11.0 | 0.36 |
Median (IQR) | 50 (39–60) | 54 (45–62) | 55 (45–64) | 54 (46–62) | |
Physician sex |
Female | 2,259 (58.2%) | 691 (41.6%) | 355 (33.5%) | 469 (26.6%) | 0.67 |
Male | 1,619 (41.7%) | 967 (58.2%) | 702 (66.3%) | 1,291 (73.2%) | 0.67 |
Missing data | 6 (0.2%) | < = 5 (0.2%) | < = 5 (0.2%) | < = 5 (0.2%) | N/Aa
|
Years since medical school graduation |
≤ 15 | 1,358 (35.0%) | 353 (21.2%) | 208 (19.6%) | 250 (14.2%) | 0.50 |
16–25 | 854 (22.0%) | 387 (23.3%) | 243 (22.9%) | 494 (28.0%) | 0.14 |
26–35 | 966 (24.9%) | 511 (30.7%) | 281 (26.5%) | 531 (30.1%) | 0.12 |
≥ 36 | 699 (18.0%) | 407 (24.5%) | 325 (30.7%) | 485 (27.5%) | 0.23 |
Missing data | 7 (0.2%) | < = 5 (0.2%) | < = 5 (0.2%) | < = 5 (0.2%) | N/Aa
|
Canadian medical graduate |
Yes | 2,913 (75.0%) | 1,103 (66.4%) | 619 (58.5%) | 842 (47.8%) | 0.58 |
No | 693 (17.8%) | 465 (28.0%) | 394 (37.2%) | 864 (49.0%) | 0.70 |
Missing data | 278 (7.2%) | 94 (5.7%) | 46 (4.3%) | 57 (3.2%) | 0.18 |
Practice location |
Urban | 2,662 (68.5%) | 1,203 (72.4%) | 815 (77.0%) | 1,463 (83.0%) | 0.34 |
Non-urban | 600 (15.4%) | 291 (17.5%) | 168 (15.9%) | 204 (11.6%) | 0.11 |
Rural | 295 (7.6%) | 72 (4.3%) | 24 (2.3%) | 35 (2.0%) | 0.26 |
Missing data | 327 (8.4%) | 96 (5.8%) | 52 (4.9%) | 61 (3.5%) | 0.21 |
Payment model |
Fee-for-service (FFS)b
| 403 (10.4%) | 132 (7.9%) | 97 (9.2%) | 255 (14.5%) | 0.12 |
Enhanced FFSc
|
CCM | 87 (2.2%) | 55 (3.3%) | 57 (5.4%) | 127 (7.2%) | 0.24 |
FHG | 504 (13.0%) | 447 (26.9%) | 391 (36.9%) | 945 (53.6%) | 0.96 |
Capitationd
|
FHT | 1,589 (40.9%) | 412 (24.8%) | 164 (15.5%) | 109 (6.2%) | 0.90 |
FHN or FHO | 1,221 (31.4%) | 609 (36.6%) | 349 (33.0%) | 327 (18.5%) | 0.30 |
Other | 80 (2.1%) | 7 (0.4%) | < = 5 (0.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.21 |
Works Fulltime (FTE ≥ 1.00) | 1,665 (42.9%) | 1,434 (86.3%) | 984 (92.9%) | 1,692 (96.0%) | 1.41 |
In our primary analysis (Table
3), older adults with dementia were 1.32 (95% CI: 1.23 to 1.41) and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.33) times more likely to receive benzodiazepine and antipsychotic prescriptions from high-volume PCPs than low-volume PCPs (Table
3; full model in Table D, Additional file
3). They were also more likely (aRR 1.08, 95% CI:1.04 to 1.13) to receive cholinesterase inhibitor prescriptions and slightly less likely (aRR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94 to 0.996) to be vaccinated against influenza than people with dementia cared for by low-volume PCPs. Patients received most prescriptions for cholinesterase inhibitors, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics from their PCP (Table C, Additional file
3) and the magnitude of the volume-outcome relationships was diminished significantly when we included prescriptions from all physicians (Table E, Additional file
3).
Table 3
Adjusted Relative Rates of Vaccination and Prescriptions for People with Dementia, by PCP’s daily patient volume
Physician’s Daily Patient Volume |
< 20 patients/day | 1.0 (reference) | - | 1.0 (reference) | - | 1.0 (reference) | - | 1.0 (reference) | - |
20 -24 patients/day | 1.00 (0.98 to 1.03) | 0.81 | 1.10 (1.05 to 1.14) | < .0001 | 1.17 (1.10 to 1.24) | < .0001 | 1.12 (1.05 to 1.19) | 0.001 |
25–29 patients/day | 0.98 (0.95 to 1.02) | 0.32 | 1.09 (1.04 to 1.14) | 0.0002 | 1.17 (1.09 to 1.26) | < .0001 | 1.15 (1.06 to 1.23) | 0.0003 |
≥ 30 patients/day | 0.97 (0.94 to 0.996) | 0.02 | 1.08 (1.04 to 1.13) | 0.0001 | 1.32 (1.23 to 1.41) | < .0001 | 1.25 (1.17 to 1.33) | < .0001 |
High visit frequency and high continuity of care were associated with an increased likelihood of influenza vaccination and higher levels of prescribing of all medications, adjusting for physician volume (Table
4). Patients who had known their doctor for at least five years were more likely to receive influenza vaccination and cholinesterase inhibitor prescriptions, but less likely (aRR 0.89, 95%CI: 0.85 to 0.94) to be prescribed antipsychotic medications, adjusting for daily patient volume and confounders. There were no significant interactions between the daily patient volume and the doctor-patient relationship variables with respect to prescribing of benzodiazepines or antipsychotics. There was a significant interaction between physician volume and both patient visit frequency and continuity of care, serving to increase the relative provision of cholinesterase inhibitors and influenza vaccinations by high compared to low volume physicians by about 8–15% (Table F, Additional file
3).
Table 4
Adjusted Main Effects of Doctor-Patient Relationship variables on Vaccination and Medication Receipt in Older Ontarians with Dementia
High visit frequency (> 7 visits/year) | 1.32 (1.30 to 1.34) | < .0001 | 1.09 (1.07 to 1.12) | < .0001 | 1.74 (1.67 to 1.82) | < .0001 | 1.25 (1.19 to 1.30) | < .0001 |
High continuity of care | 1.19 (1.16 to 1.21) | < .0001 | 1.47 (1.43 to 1.52) | < .0001 | 1.42 (1.35 to 1.49) | < .0001 | 1.31 (1.24 to 1.37) | < .0001 |
Long (≥ 5 years) doctor-patient relationship | 1.14 (1.11 to 1.17) | < .0001 | 1.13 (1.10 to 1.16) | < .0001 | 1.04 (0.996 to 1.10) | 0.08 | 0.89 (0.85 to 0.94) | < .0001 |
Discussion
In keeping with our cognitive burden hypothesis, we found that – controlling for morbidity and time since dementia diagnosis – community-dwelling people with dementia were more likely to receive both potentially harmful (benzodiazepine and antipsychotic) and potentially beneficial (cholinesterase inhibitor) prescriptions from their PCP if that physician saw ≥ 30 versus < 20 patients per day. Factors that increased face-time between doctors and their patients with dementia (i.e., more frequent visits, high continuity of care) were also associated with significantly increased likelihood of both desirable and undesirable prescribing, independent of daily patient volume. In contrast, patients of high-volume physicians were less likely to receive preventive care in the form of influenza vaccinations. Patients of high-volume physicians benefited more significantly than those of low-volume physicians from frequent office visits and high continuity of care when it came to cholinesterase inhibitor prescribing and vaccinations, but not benzodiazepine and antipsychotic prescribing.
Our “high volume” cut-off of 30 is lower than “high volume” definitions used in other studies (> 34 to ≥ 75 patients per day [
6,
13,
14], as well as the daily patient caps (up to 65 patients per day) [
7] that have been implemented in other jurisdictions. Even so, our findings are aligned with extant evidence that shows reduced preventive care in persons with diabetes by high-volume primary care providers, [
6,
15,
16] as well as a correlation between visit frequency, continuity of care and likelihood of receiving preventive testing and medicines in persons with diabetes [
37,
42] and heart disease. [
43,
44] Similar to our findings, Cadieux et al. showed that high-volume PCPs were more likely than low-volume PCPs to inappropriately prescribe non-indicated antibiotics, [
13] and Kroll et al. showed that frequent visitors in primary care were more likely to receive benzodiazepine prescriptions [
45].
Although some high-volume PCPs work longer hours to see more patients per day, at least some of their high volume comes at the cost of visit-time per patient [
10]. Benzodiazepines and antipsychotics are often prescribed to treat symptoms that are highly disruptive to people with dementia and their caregivers: sleep disturbance and other neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia. In the face of such symptoms, the decision to withhold or discontinue treatment may require extensive discussion with patients and caregivers that high-volume physicians do not have time for [
46]. Increased visit frequency and continuity of care may allow increased opportunity for primary care physicians to provide preventive care (i.e., cholinesterase inhibitors and vaccinations), but may also increase the number of times physicians are faced with caregivers and patients requesting medications to cope with distressing symptoms [
47].
Our study has some limitations. We did not have data on number of hours worked by physicians; therefore, we are unable to directly assess whether shorter visit length was driving differences in outcomes between high- versus low-volume PCPs. There is, however, significant existing evidence that high-volume PCPs achieve their high volume through briefer appointments [
9‐
11]. Our use of health administrative data limited the scope of primary care quality indicators for people with dementia we could assess; the relation of high-volume care and quality indicators such as patient or caregiver satisfaction, frequent reassessment of cognitive status and provision of caregiver support [
20,
48,
49] should be studied in subsequent work. Also, our measure of influenza vaccination has only moderate sensitivity and specificity. [
35] We were only able to describe dementia type among 35% of our sample and have no data on specific neuropsychiatric symptoms and their severity for each patient. The balance of risks and benefits associated with prescription of medications to patients with dementia is determined in part by these clinical features; [
50] therefore, there is some inherent misclassification of these processes when identifying them as either desirable or undesirable at a population level. Finally, patients of high-volume physicians in our study had higher rates of benzodiazepine and antipsychotic prescribing in the year prior to the study start. Although differences in baseline prescribing could explain ongoing differences in prescribing, we argue that PCPs are responsible for both initiating beneficial medications and deprescribing inappropriate medications in their patients. Given the absence of differences in all available measures of morbidity across daily patient volume groups (type/duration of dementia diagnosis, past-year hospitalizations and emergency department visits, CIHI Population Grouper comorbidity index), persistence of these prescribing differences may reflect ineffective deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medications among high-volume physicians.
A strength of our study is its inclusion of all older adults with dementia and the PCPs who care for them in Ontario’s single-payer health care system. We also defined daily patient volume a priori, based on cut-points that have been proposed as thresholds of safe care.[
8] Our examination of four process outcomes provides a balanced perspective on how high daily patient volume affects quality of care and our sensitivity analyses illustrate that our results are robust.
We found that high-volume primary care physicians take care of much larger panels of more deprived patients in urban settings than low-volume physicians. Although daily patient volume caps may improve some aspects of care for persons with dementia, they may not be feasible in rural districts where high volume is necessary to afford timely access to care. Development and evaluation of tools and practice models that facilitate optimal care for complex patients during rushed office visits will therefore be critical in the coming years. Similarly, models of care that reduce the significant burden of non-clinical work on physicians’ daily schedules should also be investigated and supported so that family doctors may spend a larger fraction of their time caring for complex patients with dementia and other chronic diseases. The association of daily patient volume with other outcomes that can be assessed in administrative data – such as pneumococcus vaccination, fall-related injuries, long-term care home admission and death – should also be examined in subsequent studies to further interrogate the volume-quality relationship identified here.
NEL is a resident physician in Internal Medicine at the University of British Columbia, and a post-doctoral fellow in Primary Care and Health Systems at ICES Toronto. VL is an analyst at ICES Toronto. RHG is Scientific Director of the Institute of Health Services and Policy Research at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and a Senior Core Scientist at ICES Toronto. He is also a staff family physician at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and a Scientist in its Centre for Urban Health Solutions, a Professor at the University of Toronto in the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, and Dalla Lana School of Public Health. TAS is a Canadian statistician who works as a Senior Core Scientist at ICES Toronto, as a professor in the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation of the University of Toronto, and as an adjunct professor of epidemiology and of The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice at Dartmouth College.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.