Multifaceted impact evaluation of a day hospital compared to hospitalization on symptoms, social participation, service satisfaction and costs associated to service use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compared clinical and functional changes, satisfaction with services and costs associated to service use, in participants treated in a day hospital for adults and seniors organized by diagnostic groups, with clients hospitalised. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was used. The experimental group was composed of clients (N = 40) treated in a day hospital. The comparison group included clinically and demographically similar clients hospitalised in the same institution (N = 13). Outcomes were symptoms, social participation, self-esteem, service satisfaction, utilization and associated costs. RESULTS: During the index intervention, the level of improvement was significantly greater in the day hospital group regarding symptoms (P = 0.047), self-esteem (P = 0.01) and social participation (accomplishment: P = 0.02; satisfaction: P = 0.008). Following discharge, there was no significant difference in the level of change between the two groups on all variables. Day hospital participants were significantly more satisfied of several dimensions of services (P ≤ 0.01). Comparison of total mean costs of services used 6 months before and after index treatment showed a cost reduction of 38% in the day hospital group and 7% in the hospitalisation group. CONCLUSIONS: Day hospitals organized by diagnostic groups lead to positive clinical and economical outcomes over time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".