An Outreach Rehabilitation Program for Nursing Home Residents After Hip Fracture May Be Cost-Saving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared the cost-effectiveness of 10 weeks of outreach rehabilitation (intervention) versus usual care (control) for ambulatory nursing home residents after hip fracture. METHODS: Enrollment occurred February 2011 through June 2015 in a Canadian metropolitan region. Seventy-seven participants were allocated in a 2:1 ratio to receive a 10-week rehabilitation program (intervention) or usual care (control) (46 intervention; 31 control). Using a payer perspective, we performed main and sensitivity analyses. Health outcome was measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), using the EQ5D, completed at study entry, 3-, 6-, and 12-months. We obtained patient-specific data for outpatient visits, physician claims, and inpatient readmissions; the trial provided rehabilitation utilization/cost data. We estimated incremental cost and incremental effectiveness. RESULTS: Groups were similar at study entry; the mean age was 87.9 ± 6.6 years, 54 (71%) were female and 58 (75%) had severe cognitive impairment. EQ5D QALYs scores were nonsignificantly higher for intervention participants. Inpatient readmissions were two times higher among controls, with a cost difference of -$3,350/patient for intervention participants, offsetting the cost/intervention participant of $2,300 for the outreach rehabilitation. The adjusted incremental QALYs/patient difference was 0.024 favoring the intervention, with an incremental cost/patient of -$621 for intervention participants; these values were not statistically significant. A sensitivity analysis reinforced these findings, suggesting that the intervention was likely dominant. CONCLUSION: A 10-week outreach rehabilitation intervention for nursing home residents who sustain a hip fracture may be cost-saving, through reduced postfracture hospital readmissions. These results support further work to evaluate postfracture rehabilitation for nursing home residents.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".