Healthcare Resource Uses and Out-of-Pocket Expenses Associated with Pulmonary TB Treatment in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Thailand, pharmaceutical care has been recently introduced to a tertiary hospital as an approach to improve adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment in addition to home visit and modified directly observed therapy (DOT). However, the economic impact of pharmaceutical care is not known. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate healthcare resource uses and costs associated with pharmaceutical care compared with home visit and modified DOT in pulmonary TB patients in Thailand from a healthcare sector perspective inclusive of out-of-pocket expenditures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using data abstracted from the hospital billing database associated with pulmonary TB patients who began treatment between 2010 and 2013 in three hospitals in Thailand. We used generalized linear models to compare the costs by accounting for baseline characteristics. All costs were converted to international dollars (Intl$) RESULTS: The mean direct healthcare costs to the public payer were $519.96 (95%confidence interval [CI] 437.31-625.58) associated with pharmaceutical care, $1020.39 (95% CI 911.13-1154.11) for home visit, and $887.79 (95% CI 824.28-955.91) for modified DOT. The mean costs to patients were $175.45 (95% CI 130.26-230.48) for those receiving pharmaceutical care, $53.77 (95% CI 33.25-79.44) for home visit, and $49.33 (95% CI 34.03-69.30) for modified DOT. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, pharmaceutical care was associated with lower total direct costs compared with home visit (-$354.95; 95% CI -285.67 to -424.23) and modified DOT (-$264.61; 95% CI -198.76 to -330.46). CONCLUSION: After adjustment for baseline characteristics, pharmaceutical care was associated with lower direct costs compared with home visit and modified DOT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".