An incremental cost analysis of telehealth in Nova Scotia from a societal perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the costs of telehealth in Nova Scotia from a societal perspective. The clinical outcomes of telepsychiatry and teledermatology services were assumed to be similar to those for conventional face-to-face consultations. Cost information was obtained from the Nova Scotia Department of Health, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and questionnaires to patients, physicians and telehealth coordinators. There were 215 questionnaires completed by patients, 135 by specialist physicians and eight by telehealth coordinators. Patient costs for a face-to-face consultation ranged from $240 to $1048 (all costs in Canadian dollars), whereas patient costs for telehealth were lower, from $17 to $70. However, from a societal perspective, the overall cost of providing face-to-face services was lower than for telehealth: the total costs for face-to-face services ranged from $325 to $1133, while the total costs for telehealth services ranged from $1736 to $28,084. A threshold analysis showed that, above a certain patient workload, telehealth services would be more cost-effective than face-to-face services from a societal perspective. This workload is attainable in Nova Scotia.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".