Cost Awareness among Doctors in an Irish University-Affiliated Teaching Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies in USA and Canada have found that physicians and physicians in training have a limited understanding of medical care costs. In this study, we set out to survey all grades of doctors in the surgical department, emergency department, and anaesthetic department in a university-affiliated, Irish teaching hospital. Open-ended questionnaires on cost of 25 routinely used items in the hospital were sent to each department. The aims of the study were to assess the present knowledge of cost among the various grades of doctors, and to evaluate the level of professional experience on cost awareness and their confidence in their estimates. We had an overall response rate of 56.8% with 68.5% of doctors admitted to have estimated more than 90% of their responses. Ninety three percent of doctors have no confidence in their estimates on cost of listed items. We found that the lack of cost awareness was universal among doctors of all grades (P = 0.236). The doctors in our study population showed a high level of inaccuracy on their estimates of cost of routinely used items with 84% of the items overestimated. Our results were discouraging and demonstrated that considerable educational activity will be necessary if doctors are to be more cost effective in meeting the national health care budget.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".