Evaluation of the ambulatory and home care record: Agreement between self-reports and administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although measuring the utilization of ambulatory and home-based healthcare resources is an essential component of economic analyses, very little methodological attention has been devoted to the development and evaluation of resource costing tools. This study evaluated a newly developed tool, the Ambulatory and Home Care Record (AHCR), which comprehensively evaluates costs incurred by the health system and care recipients and their unpaid caregivers. METHODS: The level of agreement between self-reports from 110 cystic fibrosis care recipients and administrative data was assessed for four categories of health services: home-based visits with healthcare professionals, ambulatory visits with healthcare professionals, laboratory and diagnostic tests, and prescription medications. RESULTS: Agreement between care recipients' reports on the AHCR and administrative data ranged from moderate (kappa = 0.41; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16-0.61) for physician specialist visits to perfect (kappa = 1.0) for physiotherapy visits. CONCLUSIONS: By evaluating and standardizing a resource and costing tool, such as the AHCR, economic evaluations may be improved and comparisons of the resource implications for different services and for diverse populations are possible.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".