MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066182106 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2014.23728

Provincial Disparities of Growth Hormone Coverage for Young Adult Survivors of Paediatric Brain Tumours across Canada

2014· article· en· W2066182106 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Haroon Hasan, A. Fuchsia Howard, Steven G. Morgan, Daniel L. Metzger, Andrea Lo, Karen Goddard

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's HospitalBC Cancer Agency
FundersBC Cancer AgencyBrain Tumour Foundation of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsGrowth hormoneMedicineDemographyGerontologyHormoneInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Young adult survivors of paediatric brain tumours (PBTs) who have been treated with radiation therapy will likely be severely growth hormone-deficient when retested at the achievement of final height. Growth hormone replacement therapy (GHRT) is administered to treat growth hormone deficiency (GHD). Public drug coverage for GHRT falls under the responsibility of provincial governments across Canada. This study sought to determine the extent of public drug coverage and cost in each Canadian province for GHRT to treat GHD during adulthood for young adult survivors of PBTs. METHODS: Data were collected from provincial government resources and drug formularies from 2012-2013 on the extent of coverage for GHRT based on a clinical case scenario representative of a young adult survivor of a PBT with childhood-onset radiation-induced GHD, the ingredient cost for GHRT and the applicable provincial public drug plan cost-sharing policies. A model was then created to simulate out-of-pocket costs incurred by a young adult male and a young adult female survivor of a PBT for one year of GHRT in each province with applicable cost-sharing arrangements and levels of low annual individual total income that best represent the majority of young adult survivors of PBTs. Out-of-pocket costs were expressed as a percentage of annual income. Comparisons were made between provinces descriptively, and variation among provinces was summarized statistically. RESULTS: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador provide coverage for GHD during adulthood on a case-by-case basis, while British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provide no coverage. The percentage of annual income to fund GHRT across the provinces without public coverage ranged from 14.4% to 25.5% for males and 21.5% to 38.3% for females, and with public coverage was 0.0% to 4.1% for males and 0.0% to 5.0% for females. INTERPRETATION: There are considerable out-of-pocket costs and variation in coverage provided by provincial public drug plans to fund GHRT for young adult survivors of PBTs with GHD. The implementation of a national drug formulary could potentially prevent undue financial hardship and remove disparities resulting from variations in provincial drug plans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207