Palliative care costs in Canada: A descriptive comparison of studies of urban and rural patients near end of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Significant gaps in the evidence base on costs in rural communities in Canada and elsewhere are reported in the literature, particularly regarding costs to families. However, it remains unclear whether the costs related to all resources used by palliative care patients in rural areas differ to those resources used in urban areas. AIM: The study aimed to compare both the costs that occurred over 6 months of participation in a palliative care program and the sharing of these costs in rural areas compared with those in urban areas. DESIGN: Data were drawn from two prior studies performed in Canada, employing a longitudinal, prospective design with repeated measures. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The urban sample consisted of 125 patients and 127 informal caregivers. The rural sample consisted of 80 patients and 84 informal caregivers. Most patients in both samples had advanced cancer. RESULTS: The mean total cost per patient was CAD 26,652 in urban areas, while it was CAD 31,018 in rural areas. The family assumed 20.8% and 21.9% of costs in the rural and urban areas, respectively. The rural families faced more costs related to prescription medication, out-of-pocket costs, and transportation while the urban families faced more costs related to formal home care. CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that rural and urban families assumed a similar portion of costs, the distribution of these costs was somewhat different. Future studies would be needed to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of costs incurred by families taking care of a loved one at the end of life and the determinants of these costs in urban versus rural areas.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".