A Cost-Utility Model of Care for Peristomal Skin Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the economic and humanistic implications of using ostomy components to prevent subsequent peristomal skin complications (PSCs) in individuals who experience an initial, leakage-related PSC event. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We developed a simple decision model to consider, from a payer's perspective, PSCs managed with and without the use of ostomy components over 1 year. The model evaluated the extent to which outcomes associated with the use of ostomy components (PSC events avoided; quality-adjusted life days gained) offset the costs associated with their use. RESULTS: Our base case analysis of 1000 hypothetical individuals over 1 year assumes that using ostomy components following a first PSC reduces recurrent events versus PSC management without components. In this analysis, component acquisition costs were largely offset by lower resource use for ostomy supplies (barriers; pouches) and lower clinical utilization to manage PSCs. The overall annual average resource use for individuals using components was about 6.3% ($139) higher versus individuals not using components. Each PSC event avoided yielded, on average, 8 additional quality-adjusted life days over 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, (1) acquisition costs for ostomy components were offset in whole or in part by the use of fewer ostomy supplies to manage PSCs and (2) use of ostomy components to prevent PSCs produced better outcomes (fewer repeat PSC events; more health-related quality-adjusted life days) over 1 year compared to not using components.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".