Effect of Increased Intensity of Physiotherapy on Patient Outcomes After Stroke: An Economic Literature Review and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional improvements have been seen in stroke patients who have received an increased intensity of physiotherapy. This requires additional costs in the form of increased physiotherapist time. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this economic analysis is to determine the cost-effectiveness of increasing the intensity of physiotherapy (duration and/or frequency) during inpatient rehabilitation after stroke, from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. DATA SOURCES: The inputs for our economic evaluation were extracted from articles published in peer-reviewed journals and from reports from government sources or the Canadian Stroke Network. Where published data were not available, we sought expert opinion and used inputs based on the experts' estimates. REVIEW METHODS: The primary outcome we considered was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We also evaluated functional strength training because of its similarities to physiotherapy. We used a 2-state Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of functional strength training and increased physiotherapy intensity for stroke inpatient rehabilitation. The model had a lifetime timeframe with a 5% annual discount rate. We then used sensitivity analyses to evaluate uncertainty in the model inputs. RESULTS: We found that functional strength training and higher-intensity physiotherapy resulted in lower costs and improved outcomes over a lifetime. However, our sensitivity analyses revealed high levels of uncertainty in the model inputs, and therefore in the results. LIMITATIONS: There is a high level of uncertainty in this analysis due to the uncertainty in model inputs, with some of the major inputs based on expert panel consensus or expert opinion. In addition, the utility outcomes were based on a clinical study conducted in the United Kingdom (i.e., 1 study only, and not in an Ontario or Canadian setting). CONCLUSIONS: Functional strength training and higher-intensity physiotherapy may result in lower costs and improved health outcomes. However, these results should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.022 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".