Costs associated with resource utilization during the palliative phase of care: a Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate prospectively the resource utilization and related costs during the palliative phase of care in five regions across Canada. SUBJECTS: A cohort of 248 patients registered in a palliative care program and their main informal caregivers were consecutively recruited. RESEARCH DESIGN: A prospective research design with repeated measures was adopted. Interviews were conducted at two-week intervals until the patient s passing or up to a maximum of 6 months. MEASURES: The survey questions prompted participants to provide information on the types and number of goods and services they used, and who paid for these goods and services. RESULTS: The largest cost component for study participants was inpatient hospital care stays, followed by home care and informal caregiving time. In regard to cost sharing, the public health care system (PHCS), the family, and not-for-profit organizations (NFPO) sustained respectively 71.3%, 26.6%, and 1.6% of the mean total cost per patient. CONCLUSION: Such results provide a comprehensive picture of costs related to palliative care in Canada, by specifying the cost sharing between the PHCS, the family, and NFPO.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".