MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094489692 · doi:10.1191/0269216303pm799oa

Palliative day care: what does it cost to run a centre and does attendance affect use of other services?

2003· article· en· W2094489692 on OpenAlexfundno aff
H R Douglas, Charles Normand, Irene J Higginson, Danielle Goodwin, K A Myers

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsAttendanceMedicinePalliative careHealth careAffect (linguistics)Psychological interventionDay careFamily medicineNursingGerontologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To describe the cost of palliative day care (PDC), assessing the value of all resources whether paid for or not. To examine different patterns of resource use resulting from attending PDC. METHODS: Five PDC centres in southern England provided detailed cost and resource use data, both paid and unpaid for. The PDC group were consecutive new referrals to a PDC centre who were well enough to be interviewed. The comparison group were recruited from home care teams. Data were collected at baseline, six to eight weeks and 12-15 weeks, on health and social care utilization in the month prior to interview. Data were divided into cohorts based on time from first interview to death and analysed separately. MAIN OUTCOMES: Annual cost of running a day care centre, and cost per patient per day. Use of all health and social care resources over time, stratified by time from death. Comparison of health and social care by stage of illness, and by PDC attendance. RESULTS: PDC cost around pound 54 per person per day in 1999, rising to pound 75 including unpaid resources. 145 patients had data on health and social care use. The patterns of care showed that, overall, patients accessed few services other than PDC. Comparison group patients did not access similar services elsewhere. PDC might substitute home nursing and GP care for patients who attend PDC at least three months before death but this data is not conclusive. Inpatient care was negligible for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A full economic evaluation could not be undertaken without robust evidence of the effectiveness of PDC. PDC centres made use of resources that were not paid for and shared resources with inpatient units, reducing costs. Service use was different for patients who attended compared with patients who did not. Similar services were not accessed elsewhere in the community; PDC does not appear to replicate other services for this group of patients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations33
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207