Evaluating patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs associated with attendance at a prostate cancer supportive care program.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
108 Background: The Prostate Cancer Supportive Care (PCSC) Program at the Vancouver Prostate Centre (VPC) services address the physical and psychological needs of men and their partners from the time of PC diagnosis onwards. The study objective was to assess the level of patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure associated with attending the PCSC services, which are otherwise free of charge, and determine whether OPP varies by specific clinical or sociodemographic characteristics. Methods: All men with PC seen at the VPC are invited to enroll in this study. Before or after any clinic and/or education appointment, pts completed a cost evaluation survey. Demographic data was collected from the PCSC Program registration forms and VPC electronic medical records. Results: Between 16-Apr-18 and 06-Sep-18, 207 men enrolled in the study and completed the survey. OOP expenses were highly skewed, with the majority of study participants spending less than $20 for each visit to the program, median (median $10, SD 80.0). Majority (93.6%) experienced either no or minimal financial burden, while 5.3% experienced moderate and 1.1% experienced substantial financial burden associated with their attendance at the program. Forty-four participants (22.1%) had to take time away from work to attend a PCSC service, on average this was 275 minutes, and 13.6% of them (2.9% of the total study sample) considered not participating because of difficulty getting the necessary time off. The average travel time (72.9 minutes) associated with a visit to the program was also highly skewed (median 45.0, SD 210.6). Using a simple linear regression, longer travel was associated with higher cost (t=8.30, p<0.0001), however, longer travel was unrelated to cost burden (F=0.35, p=0.79). Conclusions: OOP expenditure as well as associated burden is very minimal for the majority of participants. From a programmatic standpoint, a reasonable number of participants (22%) had to take time away from work. Bi-variate results show no relationship with personal income, OOP expenditure and financial burden.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".