The Incremental Health Care Costs of Frailty Among Home Care Recipients With and Without Dementia in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated the incremental 1-year direct costs of health care associated with frailty among home care recipients in Ontario with and without dementia. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of 159,570 home care clients aged 50 years and older in Ontario, Canada in 2014/2015. At index home care assessment, we ascertained dementia status using a validated algorithm and frailty level (robust, prefrail, frail) based on the proportion of accumulated to potential health deficits. Clients were followed for 1-year during which we obtained direct overall and sector-specific publicly-funded health care costs (in 2015 Canadian dollars). We estimated the incremental effect of frailty level on costs using a 3-part survival- and covariate-adjusted estimator. All analyses were stratified by dementia status. RESULTS: Among those with dementia (n=42,828), frailty prevalence was 32.1% and the average 1-year cost was $30,472. The incremental cost of frailty (vs. robust) was $10,845 [95% confidence interval (CI): $10,112-$11,698]. Among those without dementia (n=116,742), frailty prevalence was 25.6% and the average 1-year cost was $28,969. Here, the incremental cost of frailty (vs. robust) was $12,360 (95% CI: $11,849-$12,981). Large differences in survival between frailty levels reduced incremental cost estimates, particularly for the dementia group (survival effect: -$2742; 95% CI: -$2914 to -$2554). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with greater 1-year health care costs for persons with and without dementia. This difference was driven by a greater intensity of health care utilization among frail clients. Mortality differences across the frailty levels mitigated the association especially among those with dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".