The economic burden of disabling hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) from the perspective of individuals living with this condition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the direct and indirect arthritis-attributable costs to individuals with disabling hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: An established population cohort with disabling hip and/or knee OA from two regions of Ontario, Canada was surveyed to determine participant and caregiver costs related to OA, and the predictors of these costs. RESULTS: The response rate was 87.2%. Of 1378 respondents, 1258 had OA (mean age 73.1 yr, range 59-100). Sixty per cent (n = 758) reported OA-related costs. Among these individuals, the average annual cost was 12,200 dollars(CDN dollars in 2002, where 1.00 CDN dollar approximately 0.81 US dollar). Time lost from employment and leisure by participants and their unpaid caregivers accounted for 80% of the total. Men were less likely than women to report costs (adjusted odds ratio 0.54, P < 0.0001), but when they did their expenditures were significantly higher (P = 0.004). Greater disability was associated with higher costs: compared with individuals with WOMAC total scores <15, those with scores > or = 55 were 15 times more likely to report costs, and their costs were 3 times greater (both P < 0.0001). Both the young (<65 yr) and very old were more likely to incur costs (P < 0.0001), and when they did their costs were higher (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Costs incurred were mainly for time lost from employment and leisure, and for unpaid informal caregivers. Failure to value such indirect costs significantly underestimates the true burden of OA. Costs increased with worsening health status and greater OA severity. After adjustment, men were less likely to incur costs, possibly due to greater social resources.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".