The cost-effectiveness of early rehabilitation of burns patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of intervention protocols with or without rehabilitation approaches for burn patients.To explore the pros and cons of the two treatment programs,especially in terms of efficacy.Methods Data on 164 burn patients hospitalized in four hospitals in Hunan Province were collected and compared in terms of the therapeutic interventions employed,the direct medical costs and the effects obtained at the end of the first two months of hospitalization.The patients were divided into an early rehabilitation therapy group and a control group,based on the interventions they received.Results The average total direct medical cost of the early rehabilitation group was significantly lower than that of the control group [((￥)59 380.80 ±196.87) versus ((￥)67 471.62 ±217.23)].The average Vancouver scar scale (VSS) results in the early rehabilitation group were significantly better than those of the controls,but their Zung's Self-rating Anxiety Scale and Barthel index scores were not.The average cost-effectiveness ratio (C/E) of the early rehabilitation group as judged by these scores was lower than that of the control group.Conclusion Early rehabilitation can improve the therapy of burns patients and reduce subsequent expenditures.It is a cost-effective approach to treating burns patients. Key words: Burns; Rehabilitation; Cost-effectiveness
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".