[Socioeconomic Costs of Asthma in the European Union, United States and Canada: A Systematic Review].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma is responsible for a large number of doctor and emergency visits due to exacerbations and inadequate control of the disease, which give rise to very high associated economic costs. The social cost of asthma comprises both the healthcare and non-healthcare costs. The purpose of this study was to analyse up-to-date estimates of the social cost of asthma, with special reference to the influence of level of severity and degree of control. METHODS: A systematic review of original cost-of-illness studies of asthma published in English or Spanish between January 2004 and December 2014 and indexed in PubMed, IBECS or IME was conducted. RESULTS: 29 cost-of-illness studies of asthma were identified, 21 of which used the societal perspective. Only 10 studies estimated the incremental cost of asthma with a control group, and none of them refers to EU countries. Of these 10, only 4 were regarded as high-quality evidence, insofar as they combined a matched control with regression models. The annual incremental cost of asthma in adults ranged from €416 to €5,317. The incremental healthcare cost of asthma increased with level of severity, from €964 for intermittent asthma to €11,703 for severe persistent asthma in adults. In adults, the incremental non-healthcare cost of asthma ranged from €136 to €3,461. CONCLUSIONS: Selected studies in this review show great heterogeneity due to different population characteristics, study designs and valuation methods, which limits their comparability. However, it can be concluded that incremental healthcare costs of asthma, compared to people without asthma, exceeds seven hundred Euros (valued in 2013) in most of the reviwed estimation for several countries. This figure is greater for studies from the United States. The incremental cost per patient increases very rapidly with level of severity and decreases with asthma patient control.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".