548 The Economics of Burn Injuries Among Children Aged 0–4 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Children under the age of five years are particularly vulnerable to scalds and contact burns and have the highest rate of hospitalization and mortality from burns. Studies of costs associated with pediatric burns have included a limited number of patients and focused on inpatient and complication costs, limiting our understanding of the full economic burden of pediatric burns, including costs incurred through outpatient care and caregivers’ productivity loss. This study aimed to develop a societal costing model for burn injuries among children aged 0 to 4 years. Methods Children aged 0 to 4 years identified through the local Burn Registry with a burn injury between January 1, 2014 and March 15, 2018 were included in this study. Patients with inhalation injury, electrical, chemical and friction burns were excluded. An incidence-based cost-of-illness analysis with a human capital approach was used to quantify the cost of partial and full-thickness burns according to the percentage of total body surface area (%TBSA) involved. The cost of a burn injury was assessed from a societal perspective through the following cost categories: emergency department visits, inpatient, outpatient dressing changes, outpatient burnbaths, day surgeries, clinic visits and caregiver productivity losses. A list of resource items for each category were extracted from patient chart review, the local Burn Registry, and the local Hospital Finance Database, and assigned unit prices. Costs were discounted to a present value in 2017 dollars at 1.5% per annum. Results Burn injuries were observed for 342 children, of which 249 (73%) had their burn severity classified (%TBSA and partial/full thickness) and were included in this study. Burn severity categories (1–5%, 6–10%, 11–20%, and >20%) were developed based on the differential distribution of the costs allocated to each burn incident. The majority of children (60.8%) suffered from a 1–5% burn. A 1–5%, 6–10%, 11–20%, and >20% burn respectively cost an average of $2,229, $8,653, $13,663, and $98,634 to society. Costs incurred by the 1–5% burns were related mostly to emergency department visits and dressing changes, while costs incurred by the >20% were related mostly to inpatient and clinic visits (garments) costs. Conclusions This costing approach raises awareness about the important, yet preventable economic burden that pediatric burn injuries place on society. Applicability of Research to Practice This evidence may persuade policymakers and clinicians to invest in pediatric burns prevention programs in order to decrease pediatric burns costs allowing for the allocation of funds towards other clinical initiatives. This costing model may also facilitate cost-effectiveness analyses of burn prevention programs in the coming years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".