Effect of cost awareness on the utilization of laryngeal mask airway among anesthesiology residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Knowledge of cost perception is the primary step towards determining the role cost plays in decision making. We examined perception of cost and utilization. We tried to determine reasons for choosing pieces of equipment and tested the effect of cost awareness. We hypothesized altered utilization patterns in favor of a less expensive product. Methods: We conducted a single blind prospective study examining the perceptions of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) cost among residents. The study tested whether cost awareness would alter utilization. The price was altered without residents’ knowledge to ensure recognition of a price difference. Utilization before and after price labeling was compared. Results: The survey results showed when asked specifically ‘does cost influence your choice of LMA?’ 56% of the residents answered ‘No’. Only 2 out of 23 resident responses to the question ‘how much does an LMA cost’ fell within a 50% range of its approximate cost of $8. When asked ‘if two products are equivalent, would you choose the cheaper one?’ all residents answered ‘Yes’. Prior to price labeling, LMA selection 8.25% GREEN and 91.75% CLEAR. After price labeling, selection of LMA’s was 24.27% GREEN and 75.73% CLEAR LMA’s. There was a significant difference between the utilization of GREEN and CLEAR LMA’s before and after price labeling. Conclusion: This prospective single blind study on how cost awareness effects LMA selection showed altered selection following price labeling towards lower cost products. Focusing on cost awareness may have an impact on the future utilization and health care expenses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".