Costs and Caregiver Consequences of Early Supported Discharge for Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early supported discharge (ESD) for stroke has been shown to yield outcomes similar to or better than those of conventional care, but there is less information on the impact on costs and on the caregiver. The purpose of this study is to estimate the costs associated with an ESD program compared with those of usual care. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of stroke patients who required rehabilitation services and who had a caregiver at home. RESULTS: Acute-care costs incurred before randomization when patients were medically ready for discharge averaged $3251 per person. The costs for the balance of the acute-care stay, from randomization to discharge, were $1383 for the home group and $2220 for the usual care group. The average cost of providing the 4-week home intervention service was $943 per person. The total cost generated by persons assigned to the home group averaged $7784 per person, significantly lower than the $11 065 per person for those assigned to usual care. A large proportion of the cost differential between the 2 groups arose from readmissions, for which the usual care group generated costs more than quadruple those of the home intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Providing care at home was no more (or less) expensive for those with greater functional limitation than for those with less. Caregivers in the ESD group scored consistently lower on the Burden Index than caregivers with usual care, even caregivers of persons with major functional limitations. For persons recovering from stroke and their families, ESD provides a cost-effective alternative to usual care.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".