Health Care Costs of Individuals With Chronic Psychotic Disorders Who Experience Incarceration in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the health care costs of individuals with chronic psychotic disorders who experience incarceration. This study sought to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: The authors analyzed linked 2007-2010 correctional and administrative health care data on sex- and age-matched individuals with chronic psychotic disorders with and without known incarceration in prison for up to 2 years in the Ontario correctional system. Mean 1-year health care costs (overall and by sex) in the year before incarceration (when release occurred in 2010) were estimated from third-party payer data and compared between the two groups. Costs were calculated in 2018 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Individuals who experienced incarceration (N=3,197) had mean 1-year costs of $15,728 in the year before incarceration, whereas those who did not (N=6,393) had 1-year costs of $11,588. This difference was mostly due to costs arising from psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and physician services. The main factors associated with the difference were incarceration in the following year (increase of $4,827, p<0.001), being age 18-29 years compared with ages 30-39 or 40-49 (increase of $4,448 and $4,218, respectively, p<0.001), and chronic psychotic disorder duration of 1-2 years compared with ≤1 year duration (increase of $6,812, p=0.004). Women who experienced incarceration had higher costs than incarcerated men ($20,648 vs. $14,763). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with chronic psychotic disorders who experienced incarceration had higher health care costs than comparable individuals who did not. These higher health care costs may signal the need for interventions and policies that help individuals with psychotic disorders avoid criminal justice system involvement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".