The average cost of pressure ulcer management in a community dwelling spinal cord injury population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a common secondary complication experienced by community dwelling individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). There is a paucity of literature on the health economic impact of PU in SCI population from a societal perspective. The objective of this study was to determine the resource use and costs in 2010 Canadian dollars of a community dwelling SCI individual experiencing a PU from a societal perspective. A non-comparative cost analysis was conducted on a cohort of community dwelling SCI individuals from Ontario, Canada. Medical resource use was recorded over the study period. Unit costs associated with these resources were collected from publicly available sources and published literature. Average monthly cost was calculated based on 7-month follow-up. Costs were stratified by age, PU history, severity level, location of SCI, duration of current PU and PU surface area. Sensitivity analyses were also carried out. Among the 12 study participants, total average monthly cost per community dwelling SCI individual with a PU was $4745. Hospital admission costs represented the greatest percentage of the total cost (62%). Sensitivity analysis showed that the total average monthly costs were most sensitive to variations in hospitalisation costs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".