Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life, Work Status, and Health Care Utilization and Costs According to Hip and Knee Joint Disease Severity: A National Australian Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No population-based studies have investigated how the impact of hip and knee joint disease may vary with increasing severity. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work status, and health service utilization and costs according to severity of hip and knee joint disease. DESIGN: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted. METHODS: Five thousand individuals were randomly selected from the Australian electoral roll and invited to complete a questionnaire to screen for doctor-diagnosed hip arthritis, hip osteoarthritis (OA), knee arthritis, and knee OA. Severity was classified by means of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (range=0-100): <7=asymptomatic, 7-38=mild-moderate, and ≥39=severe. Health-related quality of life was evaluated by means of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument (range=-0.04 to 1.00; scored worst-best). Self-reported data on work status and health service utilization were collected, with health care costs estimated with the use of government data. RESULTS: Data were available for 1,157 participants, with 237 (20%) reporting hip or knee joint disease. Of these, 16% (n=37) were classified as asymptomatic, 51% (n=120) as mild-moderate, and 27% (n=64) as severe. The severe group reported very low HRQoL (adjusted mean AQoL=0.43, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=0.38-0.47) compared with the mild-moderate group (adjusted mean AQoL=0.72, 95% CI=0.69-0.75) and the asymptomatic group (adjusted mean AQoL=0.80, 95% CI=0.74-0.86). Compared with the asymptomatic group, the severe group was >3 times less likely to undertake paid work (adjusted odds ratio=0.28, 95% CI=0.09-0.88) and >4 times less likely to undertake unpaid work (adjusted odds ratio=0.24, 95% CI=0.10-0.62). Although physical therapy services were used infrequently, primary and specialist care utilization and costs were highest for the severe group. LIMITATIONS: Other costs (including physical therapy consultations) were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: A clear pattern of worsening HRQoL, reduced work participation, and higher medical care utilization was seen with increasing severity of joint disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".