MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126922575 · doi:10.1080/10903120090941632

C OST -E FFECTIVENESS A NALYSIS OF A R URAL /U RBAN F IRST - RESPONDER D EFIBRILLATION P ROGRAM

2000· article· en· W2126922575 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bruce D. Jermyn

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsCambridge Memorial Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFirst responderDefibrillationBasic life supportPopulationRural areaMedical emergencyAdvanced life supportCost analysisOperations managementEmergency medicineEngineeringCardiopulmonary resuscitationOperations researchEnvironmental healthInternal medicineResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of a proposed first-responder defibrillation program in a small rural area in comparison with a recently initiated first-responder program in an adjoining urban center in southwestern Ontario. The purpose of the analysis was to quantify the expected benefits of the proposed program to determine whether the costs are justified. METHODS: This analysis was conducted on the city of Waterloo (population 80,000 over 25 square miles) and the adjoining rural township of Wellesley (population 8,000 over 105 square miles). The township has volunteer fire department first responders with basic life support (BLS), and basic life support/defibrillation (BLS-D) ambulances as the second tier; whereas the city's full-time fire department has recently adopted a first-responder defibrillation (BLS-D) program backed up by the same BLS-D ambulance service. The most relevant costs identified were the capital costs of the defibrillators, ancillary equipment, and biomedical service for preventive maintenance and routine nonwarranty work. Response intervals and percentage of patients found in ventricular fibrillation were projected and sensitivity analysis was applied. RESULTS: The projected cost per life saved is $6,776 (C) in the urban area and $49,274 (C) in the rural area using an incremental save rate of 6%. Applying sensitivity analysis to the data, the save rate varied from 2% to 10%, resulting in a cost per life saved of $20,328 (C) and $4,066 (C), respectively, in the urban community. For the rural area, the cost per life saved ranged from $147,821 (C) (2%) to $29,564 (C) (10%). Even the worst-case save rate for the urban center [2%; $20,328 (C)] is significantly less than the best-case save rate [10%; $29,564 (C)] for the rural area. CONCLUSIONS: The cost per life saved for a rural first-responder defibrillation program is significantly more expensive than one for an urban center. However, the cost per life saved is still economical compared with common treatments for other life-threatening illnesses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations21
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital Emergency CareSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207