The economic burden of dissociative disorders: A qualitative systematic review of empirical studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Dissociative disorders (DDs) are associated with intensive, long-term treatment, suicidality, recurrent hospitalizations, and high rates of disability. However, little is known about the specifics of the economic burden associated with DDs. This worldwide, systematic review examines the results of studies in adults on direct and indirect costs associated with DDs. METHOD: We searched 6 databases and the reference lists of articles. We also approached researchers to identify unpublished studies. No language restrictions were imposed. RESULTS: A total of 1,002 records met the search criteria, of which 29 papers were selected for full-text inspection. Ultimately, of these, we reviewed four empirical studies. We provide a narrative discussion of study findings. Our findings suggest that DDs are costly to society, and that there is a reduction in service utilization and associated costs over time with diagnosing of and specialized treatment for DDs. However, the overall quality of the economic evaluations was low; several types of DDs, comorbid conditions, and costs were not included; and men were underrepresented. Due to the heterogeneity among studies, we could not perform a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the identified economic evaluations, no firm conclusions about the economic burden of DDs alone can be drawn. Higher quality research, including a detailed description of the study design, population, and primary outcome measures used, utilizing appropriate clinical alternatives and including major comorbidities, is urgently needed to more rigorously assess the economic impact of DDs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.049 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".