An examination of cancer patients’ monthly ‘out-of-pocket’ costs in Ontario, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario cancer patients' monthly out-of-pocket costs (OOPC) were assessed to determine whether these costs were problematic. A self-administered questionnaire was administered to breast (n = 74), colorectal (n = 70), lung (n = 68) and prostate (n = 70) cancer patients between October 2001 and April 2003. It measured categorical OOPC, which were analysed using linear regression modelling, to determine whether any of a variety of independent variables influenced OOPC. Monthly OOPC (mean, range) were: parking/fares ($47, $0-450), devices ($46, $0-2350), prescription drugs ($45, $0-1400), accommodation ($43, $0-1500), complementary and alternative medicine ($29, $0-5000), vitamins ($25, $0-400), homemaking ($14, $0-1000), family care ($12, $0-1200), homecare ($2, $0-330) and other ($8, $0-250), with the total averaging $213 ($0-5230). Imputed travel mileage costs added $372 ($0-6180). Most patients were well served by the current healthcare programmes. In multivariate analysis, variables influencing several OOPC categories were: tumour site, hospitalization, age, and number of clinic trips. Travel costs proved the most problematic, with patients under 65 years and without insurance more likely to have high OOPC. Education and income were not reliable predictors for high OOPC. Many of these costs were for items not traditionally covered by public healthcare financing systems, raising important issues around defining 'medically necessary' care and the role of government.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it