Home Dialysis is Associated with Lower Costs and Better Survival than other Modalities: A Population-Based Study in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background How and where to initiate dialysis are policy challenges with enormous economic and health consequences. Initiating with home hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) may reduce costs and improve outcomes but evidence is conflicting. Methods We conducted a population-based study in patients aged ≥ 18 years who initiated chronic dialysis in the province of Ontario, Canada from 2006 to 2014 ( N = 12,691) using linked administrative data. Patients were grouped by initial modality: facility HD, facility short daily or slow nocturnal (SD/SN) HD, PD, home HD. We estimated publicly-paid healthcare costs (2015 Canadian dollars; 1 = 0.947 US dollar) and survival, from dialysis initiation to March 2015. Results By 5 years after dialysis initiation, mean 30-day costs (as-treated) for patients receiving PD and home HD were 50% and 64% lower, respectively, than for facility HD patients ($11,011). Approximately 50% of costs were unrelated to dialysis, reflecting high comorbidity in these patients. With covariate adjustment, mean 5-year cumulative costs were similar for initiators of home HD and PD ($304,178 and $349,338) and higher for facility HD initiators ($410,981). The highest 5-year unadjusted survival was for home HD patients (80%), followed by PD (52%), SD/SN HD (50%), and facility HD (42%). Conclusions This study in a large cohort over 9 years provides new population-based evidence suggesting that initiating dialysis at home is cost-effective, with lower costs and better survival, than starting with facility HD. Survival differences persisted after adjustment for baseline characteristics but we could not adjust for functional status or severity of comorbidities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".