Incremental health care costs for chronic pain in Ontario, Canada: a population-based matched cohort study of adolescents and adults using administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the economic burden of chronic pain and how chronic pain affects health care utilization. We aimed to estimate the annual per-person incremental medical cost and health care utilization for chronic pain in the Ontario population from the perspective of the public payer. We performed a retrospective cohort study using Ontario health care databases and the electronically linked Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) from 2000 to 2011. We identified subjects aged ≥12 years from the CCHS with chronic pain and closely matched them to individuals without pain using propensity score matching methods. We used linked data to determine mean 1-year per-person health care costs and utilization for each group and mean incremental cost for chronic pain. All costs are reported in 2014 Canadian dollars. After matching, we had 19,138 pairs of CCHS respondents with and without chronic pain. The average age was 55 years (SD = 18) and 61% were female. The incremental cost to manage chronic pain was $1742 per person (95% confidence interval [CI], $1488-$2020), 51% more than the control group. The largest contributor to the incremental cost was hospitalization ($514; 95% CI, $364-$683). Incremental costs were the highest in those with severe pain ($3960; 95% CI, $3186-$4680) and in those with most activity limitation ($4365; 95% CI, $3631-$5147). The per-person cost to manage chronic pain is substantial and more than 50% higher than a comparable patient without chronic pain. Costs are higher in people with more severe pain and activity limitations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".