The Economic Burden of Hospital-Acquired <i>Clostridium difficile</i> Infection: A Population-Based Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND High-quality cost estimates for hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) are vital evidence for healthcare policy and decision-making. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the costs attributable to hospital-acquired CDI from the healthcare payer perspective. METHODS We conducted a population-based propensity-score matched cohort study of incident hospitalized subjects diagnosed with CDI (those with the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Canada code A04.7) from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2010, in Ontario, Canada. Infected subjects were matched to uninfected subjects (those without the code A04.7) on age, sex, comorbidities, geography, and other variables, and followed up through December 31, 2011. We stratified results by elective and nonelective admissions. The main study outcomes were up-to-3-year costs, which were evaluated in 2014 Canadian dollars. RESULTS We identified 28,308 infected subjects (mean annual incidence, 27.9 per 100,000 population, 3.3 per 1,000 admissions), with a mean age of 71.5 years (range, 0-107 years), 54.0% female, and 8.0% elective admissions. For elective admission subjects, cumulative mean attributable 1-, 2-, and 3-year costs adjusted for survival (undiscounted) were $32,151 (95% CI, $28,192-$36,005), $34,843 ($29,298-$40,027), and $37,171 ($30,364-$43,415), respectively. For nonelective admission subjects, the corresponding costs were $21,909 ($21,221-$22,609), $26,074 ($25,180-$27,014), and $29,944 ($28,873-$31,086), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Hospital-acquired CDI is associated with substantial healthcare costs. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first CDI costing study to present longitudinal costs. New strategies may be warranted to mitigate this costly infectious disease. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:1068-1078.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".