An economic evaluation of a telehealth network in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We carried out an economic evaluation of the northernmost five sites of the British Columbia telehealth network. The videoconferencing network links health-care facilities in 12 communities with Vancouver, for clinical consultations, administrative meetings and educational sessions. The economic evaluation was based on the netcost criterion (i.e. cost of telehealth minus travel costs avoided). Cost and utilization data were obtained from client interviews and log data compiled between September 2001 and January 2003. The results showed that the subnetwork of five sites was not only cost reducing, but also cost-effective. Travel costs for administrative meetings were reduced by $724,457/annum and were greater than the annual fixed and variable costs of all the telehealth sessions ($553,740). A sensitivity analysis was conducted on six parameters: amortization period, opportunity cost of capital, operating cost of a telehealth session (by type of session), number of telehealth sessions, travel time and the opportunity cost of travel time. The study suggests that the cost-effectiveness of telehealth to remote areas will increase over time as the cost of equipment continues to fall, as network connections become cheaper and as utilization rates rise.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".