Cost and Resource Utilization in Cervical Cancer Management: A Real-World Retrospective Cost Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We set out to assess the health care resource utilization and cost of cervical cancer from the perspective of a single-payer health care system. METHODS: Retrospective observational data for women diagnosed with cervical cancer in British Columbia between 2004 and 2009 were analyzed to calculate patient-level resource utilization patterns from diagnosis to death or 5-year discharge. Domains of resource use within the scope of this cost analysis were chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and brachytherapy administered by the BC Cancer Agency; resource utilization related to hospitalization and outpatient visits as recorded by the B.C. Ministry of Health; medically required services billed under the B.C. Medical Services Plan; and prescriptions dispensed under British Columbia's health insurance programs. Unit costs were applied to radiotherapy and brachytherapy, producing per-patient costs. RESULTS: The mean cost per case of treating cervical cancer in British Columbia was $19,153 (standard error: $3,484). Inpatient hospitalizations, at 35%, represented the largest proportion of the total cost (95% confidence interval: 32.9% to 36.9%). Costs were compared for subgroups of the total cohort. CONCLUSIONS: As health care systems change the way they manage, screen for, and prevent cervical cancer, cost-effectiveness evaluations of the overall approach will require up-to-date data for resource utilization and costs. We provide information suitable for such a purpose and also identify factors that influence costs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".