Turning High‐Risk Individuals: An Economic Evaluation of Repositioning Frequency in Long‐Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that less frequent repositioning of long-term care residents at moderate to high risk of developing pressure ulcers (PrUs) is noninferior to current repositioning standards in preventing PrUs, but the long-term health and economic consequences of less frequent repositioning have not been adequately estimated. Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of different repositioning strategies (2-, 3-, 4-hour intervals). We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a lifetime horizon based on data from a randomized clinical trial and the literature. We updated a published PrU decision model with resource usage, unit costs, and epidemiological estimates from the literature and from a small observational study. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care perspective was taken. We estimated lifetime costs to be CAN$5,425 (95% credible interval (CrI)=$922-12,166) less per resident with 3-hour repositioning than with 2-hour repositioning and CAN$3,296 (95% CrI=$483-9,738) less than with 4-hour repositioning. The gain in expected quality-adjusted life years from a 3- to a 2-hour repositioning strategy was 0.008, (95% CrI=0.005-0.016) and from a 3- to a 4-hour repositioning strategy was 0.009 (95% CrI=0.007-0.018). Repositioning at 3-hour intervals was the dominant strategy with respect to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio against the 2- and 4-hour strategies. Sensitivity analysis showed a 99% probability that 3-hour repositioning was a dominant strategy. We concluded that repositioning at 3-hour intervals for residents at moderate or high risk of PrUs and who were cared for on high-density foam mattresses appeared to be the most cost-effective strategy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".