Cost-Minimization Analysis of a Telehomecare Program for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cost-minimization analysis was performed on a telehomecare program for patients with a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The research was quasi-experimental and included a control group. We compared the effects and costs of care provided to a group of 19 patients under a telehomecare program to a comparable group of 10 patients receiving regular home care without telemonitoring. Our results clearly indicate that there were fewer home visits by nurses and hospitalizations for patients in the experimental group. However, these patients made more telephone calls than patients in the control group, although this difference was not statistically significant. Of utmost importance, the cost-minimization analysis yielded positive results. Indeed, telemonitoring over a 6-month period generated $355 in savings per patient, or a net gain of 15% compared to traditional home care. Our study confirms the findings of previous studies that analyzed the efficacy of telemonitoring for patients with COPD. Patients were found to easily accept the idea of using the technology, and the telehomecare program demonstrated significant clinical benefits. Financial advantages of the program could have been more pronounced had it not been for the cost of technology that effectively erased a good portion of the savings.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".