MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185400263 · doi:10.1080/03007995.2021.1954894

Prevalence, incidence and economic burden of schizophrenia among Medicaid beneficiaries

2021· article· en· W3185400263 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Pilon, Charmi Patel, Marie‐Hélène Lafeuille, Maryia Zhdanava, Dee Lin, Aurélie Côté‐Sergent, Carmine Rossi, Kruti Joshi, Patrick Lefèbvre

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
FundersJanssen Scientific Affairs
KeywordsMedicineMedicaidSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Incidence (geometry)CohortDemographyIndirect costsHealth carePsychiatryEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To estimate the prevalence, incidence and economic burden of schizophrenia among Medicaid beneficiaries.Methods Annual prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia among adult Medicaid beneficiaries were estimated during 2012–2017, by state and across six states (IA, KS, MS, MO, NJ and WI). The pooled estimate of the economic burden of schizophrenia was obtained during 1998Q1–2018Q1 across six states; adults with ≥2 diagnoses of schizophrenia were matched 1:1 to schizophrenia-free controls. The last observed schizophrenia diagnosis (schizophrenia cohort) or the last service claim (control cohort) with ≥12 months of continuous Medicaid enrollment before/after it defined the index date. Healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs ($2018 USD) incurred 12 months post-index were compared between cohorts. The economic burden of schizophrenia was also evaluated among young adults (18–34 years).Results Annual prevalence of schizophrenia ranged between 2.30% and 2.71% and annual incidence between 0.31% and 0.39% during 2012–2016. In 2017, only states with the highest incidence and prevalence rates (KS, MS, MO) had data, resulting in higher prevalence (4.01%) and incidence (0.52%). For the economic burden, adults with schizophrenia (N = 158,763) had higher HRU and incurred $14,087 higher healthcare costs versus controls (mean: $28,644 vs. $14,557), driven by $4677 higher long-term care costs (all p < .001). Young adults with schizophrenia incurred $14,945 higher healthcare costs versus controls, driven by $3473 higher inpatient costs (p < 0.001).Conclusions Annual prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia varied by state but remained stable over time. Adults with schizophrenia incurred greater HRU and costs relative to adults without schizophrenia; the burden appeared comparable among young adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207