MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195441587 · doi:10.4187/respcare.09263

Health Care Use, Costs, and Survival Trajectory of Home Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation

2021· article· en· W3195441587 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Rose, Tom Fisher, Regina Pizzuti, Reshma Amin, Ruth Croxford, Craig Dale, Roger Goldstein, Sherri L. Katz, David Leasa, Doug McKim, Mika Nonoyama, Anu Tandon, Andrea S. Gershon

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityOttawa HospitalWest Park Healthcare CentreHealth Sciences CentreSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreOntario Tech UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeEmergency medicineExsufflationHealth careHazard ratioRetrospective cohort studyEmergency departmentInsufflationInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence intervalNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite expert recommendations for use, limited evidence identifies effectiveness of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) in addressing respiratory morbidity and resultant health care utilization and costs for individuals with neuromuscular disorders. We examined the impact of provision of publicly funded MI-E devices on health care utilization, health care costs, and survival trajectory. METHODS: This is a retrospective pre/post cohort study linking data on prospectively recruited participants using MI-E to health administrative databases to quantify outcomes. RESULTS: We linked data from 106 participants (8 age < 15 y) and determined annualized health care use pre/post device. We found no difference in emergency department (ED) visit or hospital admission rates. Following MI-E approval, participants required fewer hospital days (median [interquartile range] [IQR]) 0 [0–9] vs 0 [0–4], P = .03). Rates of physician specialist visits also decreased (median IQR 7 [4–11] vs 4 [2–7], P < .001). Conversely, rates of home care nursing and homemaking/personal support visits increased. Following MI-E, total costs were lower for 59.4%, not different for 13.2%, and higher for 27.4%. Physician billing costs decreased whereas home care costs increased. Regression modeling identified pre-MI-E costs were the most important predictor of costs after approval. At 12 months, 23 (21.7%) participants had died. Risk of death was higher for those using more medical devices (hazard ratio 1.12, [95% CI 1.02–1.22]) in the home. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of publicly funded MI-E devices did not influence rates of ED visits or hospital admission but did shift health care utilization and costs from the acute care to community sector. Although increased community costs negated cost savings from physician billings, evidence suggests costs savings from reduced hospital days and fewer specialist visits. Risk of death was highest in individuals requiring multiple medical technologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207