Economic evaluation of public-private mix for tuberculosis care and control, India. Part I. Socio-economic profile and costs among tuberculosis patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SETTING: Bangalore City, India. OBJECTIVES: To assess the socio-economic profile, health-seeking behaviour and costs related to tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis and treatment among patients treated under the Revised National TB Control Programme (RNTCP). DESIGN: All 1106 new TB patients registered for treatment under the RNTCP in the second quarter of 2005 participated. Interviews at the beginning and at the end of treatment were conducted. A convenience sample of 32 patients treated outside the RNTCP also participated. RESULTS: Among the TB patients, respectively 50% and 39% were from low and middle standard of living (SL) households, and 77% were from households with a per capita income of less than US$1 per day. The first health contact was with a private practitioner in the case of >70% of patients. Mean patient delay was low, at 21 days, but the mean health system delay was 52 days. The average cost incurred by patients before treatment in the RNTCP was US$145, and during treatment it was US$21. Costs as a proportion of annual household income per capita were 53% for people from low SL households and 41% for those from other households. Costs during treatment faced by patients treated outside the RNTCP averaged US$127. CONCLUSION: Patients treated under the RNTCP through a public-private mix approach were predominantly poor. Many of them experienced considerable health expenditures before starting treatment. Additional efforts are required to reduce the delays and the number of health care providers consulted, and to ensure that patients are shifted to subsidised treatment within the RNTCP.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".