A cost-effectiveness analysis of interactive paediatric telecardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analysed the cost-effectiveness of a teleconsultation service after five years of operation. The service provides diagnostic consultation at a distance for children suffering from cardiac pathologies. A retrospective study was performed with all 78 infants who had received a paediatric cardiology teleconsultation over a four-year period from January 1998. The cost-effectiveness of telecardiology was compared with that of the conventional means of providing services. Teleconsultation proved to be an effective and reliable method of enhancing access to tertiary care. The number of patient journeys (both emergency transfers and semi-urgent or elective visits to the tertiary care centre) was reduced by 42%. However, the cost analysis demonstrated that teleconsultation did not result in overall cost savings: the total cost of telecardiology was C dollars 272,327 and the total cost of conventional care would have been C dollars 157,212. There were direct savings for patients but not for the health-care system, because of the high cost of the equipment and telecommunication fees. Telemedicine therefore represented a supplementary cost of C dollars 1500 per patient. In summary, telemedicine added to cost but increased effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of teleconsultation was estimated to C dollars 3488 per patient journey avoided.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".