Cost Collection and Analysis for Health Economic Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of common health care cost collection, estimation, analysis, and reporting methodologies. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (1947 to December 2012), Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials, Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. REVIEW METHODS: This article discusses the following cost collection methods: defining relevant resources, quantification of consumed resources, and resource valuation. It outlines the recommendations for cost reporting in economic evaluations and reviews the techniques on how to handle cost data uncertainty. Last, it discusses the controversial topics of future costs and patient productivity losses. CONCLUSION: Health care cost collection and estimation can be challenging, and an organized approach is required to optimize accuracy of economic evaluation outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Understanding health care cost collection and estimation techniques will improve both critical appraisal and development of future economic evaluations.
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 | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".