Household costs of hospitalized dengue illness in semi-rural Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dengue-related illness is a leading cause of hospitalization and death in Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries, imposing a major economic burden on households, health systems, and governments. This study aims to assess the economic impact of hospitalized dengue cases on households in Chachoengsao province in eastern Thailand. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cost-of-illness study of hospitalized pediatric and adult dengue patients at three public hospitals. We examined all hospitalized dengue cases regardless of disease severity. Patients or their legal guardians were interviewed using a standard questionnaire to determine household-level medical and non-medical expenditures and income losses during the illness episode. RESULTS: Between March and September 2015, we recruited a total of 224 hospitalized patients (<5 years, 4%; 5-14 years, 20%, 15-24 years, 36%, 25-34 years, 15%; 35-44 years, 10%; 45+ years, 12%), who were clinically diagnosed with dengue. The total cost of a hospitalized dengue case was higher for adult patients than pediatric patients, and was US$153.6 and US$166.3 for pediatric DF and DHF patients, respectively, and US$171.2 and US$226.1 for adult DF and DHF patients, respectively. The financial burden on households increased with the severity of dengue illness. CONCLUSIONS: Although 74% of the households reported that the patient received free medical care, hospitalized dengue illness cost approximately 19-23% of the monthly household income. These results indicated that dengue imposed a substantial financial burden on households in Thailand where a great majority of the population was covered by the Universal Coverage Scheme for health care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".