Dietary fibre intakes and reduction in functional constipation rates among Canadian adults: a cost-of-illness analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based research highlights beneficial impacts of dietary fibre on several aspects of the gut pathophysiology that are accompanied by a considerable financial burden in healthcare services. Recommended intakes of dietary fibre may thus associate with financial benefits at a population level. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically assess the potential annual savings in healthcare costs that would follow the reduction in rates of functional constipation and irregularity with increased dietary fibre intakes among Canadian adults. DESIGN: A cost-of-illness analysis was developed on the basis of current and recommended levels of fibre intake in Canada, constipation reduction per 1 g fibre intake, proportion of adults who are likely to consume fibre-rich diets, and population expected to respond to fibre intake. Sensitivity analyses covering a range of assumptions were further implemented within the economic simulation. RESULTS: Our literature searches assumed a 1.8% reduction in constipation rates with each 1 g/day increase in fibre intake. With intakes corresponding to the Institute of Medicine's adequate levels of 38 g/day for men and 25 g/day for women, among 5 and 100% of the adult populations, anywhere between CAD$1.5 and CAD$31.9 million could be saved on constipation-related healthcare costs annually. Each 1 g/day increase in dietary fibre was estimated to result in total annual healthcare cost savings that ranged between CAD$0.1 and CAD$2.5 million. CONCLUSIONS: The present research suggests an economic value of increasing dietary fibre intake beyond its well-known health benefits. Healthy-eating behaviours consistent with the recommended intakes of dietary fibre by the general public should hence be advocated as a practical approach for reducing costs associated with the management of constipation in Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".