Assessing Costs and Potential Returns of Evidence-Based Programs for Seniors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors describe the customary tools used by health services researchers to conduct economic evaluations of health interventions. Recognizing the inherent challenges of these tools for utilization in contemporary public health practice, we recommend a practical cost-benefit analysis (PCBA) to allow public health practitioners to assess the economic merits of their existing public health programs. The PCBA estimates what health effects and corresponding medical cost avoidance would be required to support the costs associated with implementing a community-based prevention program. We apply the PCBA to evaluate a statewide evidence-based falls prevention program for seniors in Texas. We estimate a positive return on realized costs due to avoided direct and indirect medical expenses if the program averts 7 falls among 140 participants within the first year. While acknowledging the demonstrated health-related benefits of public health interventions, we provide a practical ex-post economic evaluation methodology to assess return on investment as a more simplistic yet effective alternative for public health practitioners versus contemporary analyses of health services researchers.
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.
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 | 0.067 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it