MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214641965 · doi:10.33137/utjph.v2i2.37005

The Effect of Back Pain on Health Care Utilization and Costs

2021· article· en· W3214641965 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica J. Wong, Pierre Côté, Andrea C. Tricco, Tristan Watson, Laura C. Rosella

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Journal of Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthSt. Michael's HospitalCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeOntario Tech UniversityCentre for Disability Prevention and RehabilitationPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingBack painHealth carePoisson regressionPopulationRate ratioCohort studyDemographyPhysical therapyLow back painCohortEnvironmental healthAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: We assessed the effect of self-reported back pain on health care utilization and costs in a population-based sample of Ontario adults. Methods: We conducted a population-based matched cohort study of Ontarian respondents aged ≥18 years of Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) from 2003-2012. CCHS data were individually linked to health administrative data to measure health care utilization and costs up to 2018. We propensity-score matched (hard-matched on sex) adults with self-reported back pain to those without back pain, accounting for sociodemographic, health-related, and behavioural factors. We evaluated back pain-specific and all-cause health care utilization and costs from healthcare payer perspective adjusted to 2018 Canadian dollars. Poisson and linear (log-transformed) models were used to assess healthcare utilization rates and costs. Results: After propensity-score matching, we identified 36,806 pairs (21,054 for women, 15,752 for men) of CCHS respondents with and without back pain (mean age 51 years; SD=18). Compared to propensity-score matched adults without back pain, adults with back pain had two times the rate of back pain-specific visits (women: rate ratio [RR] 2.06, 95% CI 1.88-2.25; men: RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.04-2.64), 1.1 times the rate of all-cause physician visits (women: RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.09-1.16; men: RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.14), and 1.2 times the costs (women: 1.21, 95% CI 1.16-1.27; men: 1.16, 95% CI 1.09-1.23). Incremental annual per-person costs were higher in adults with back pain versus those without (women: $395, 95% CI $281-$509; men: $196, 95% CI $94-$300), corresponding to $532 million for women and $227 million CAD for men annually in Ontario. Conclusions: Adults with back pain had considerably higher health care utilization and costs compared to adults without back pain. These findings provide the most recent, comprehensive, and high-quality estimates of the health system burden of back pain to inform healthcare policy and decision-making. New strategies to reduce the substantial burden of back pain are warranted.

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 score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Journal of Public HealthSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207