MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210741799 · doi:10.2196/36382

Estimation of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure on COVID-19 Management Among Patients Treated at Home, Iraq, 2020

2022· article· en· W4210741799 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Falah Abdul kader Saeed, Faris Lami

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cross-sectional studySnowball samplingSocioeconomic statusDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineDiseasePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background There is a global consensus that the socioeconomic impact of the COVID-19 crisis has had a substantial effect on health programs and health insurance, with losses of jobs and rising prices causing growing poverty. Objective This study aims to estimate the out-of-pocket expenditure spent on the management of patients with COVID-19 exclusively treated at home. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted, and data were collected from participating patients with COVID-19 in Iraq through snowball sampling by using a questionnaire. Enrollment occurred from November 1 to December 31, 2020, and excluded individuals who were entering the hospitals. Results Among 589 participating patients with COVID-19, 328 (55.7%) were female. Female patients spent more than male patients to get cured of the illness; the mean amount of money spent by women was statistically higher than men (IQD 644,617 [US $402] and IQD 461,653 [US $307], respectively). The average total money expenditures spent was IQD 643,304 (US $428; range IQD 505,096-5,595,000 [US $336-US $3730]) among patients exclusively treated at home. The average money spent by patients with inadequate monthly income (IQD 901,424 [US $600], range IQD 220,000-5,260,000 [US $140-US $3500]) was significantly more than patients with adequate monthly income (IQD 613,252 [US $400], range IQD 48,000-5,500,000 [US $32-US $3600]). Patients with COVID-19 (25.5%) who had chronic diseases spent significantly more money (IQD 696,330 [US $460]) than those without the chronic disease (IQD 625,185 [US $416]). Conclusions Financial burdens affected the purchasing power and the economic situation on the management of patients with COVID-19 exclusively treated at home.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207