Patient-reported outcome is associated with health care costs in patients with ischaemic heart disease and arrhythmia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Systematic use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have the potential to improve quality of care and reduce costs of health care services. We aimed to describe whether PROs in patients diagnosed with heart disease are directly associated with health care costs. METHODS AND RESULTS: A national cross-sectional survey including PROs at discharge from a heart centre with 1-year follow-up using data from national registers. We included patients with either ischaemic heart disease (IHD), arrhythmia, heart failure (HF), or valvular heart disease (VHD). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the heart-specific quality of life, the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale were used. The economic analysis was based on direct costs including primary, secondary health care, and medical treatment. Patient-reported outcomes were available from 13 463 eligible patients out of 25.241 [IHD (n = 7179), arrhythmia (n = 4322), HF (n = 987), or VHD (n = 975)]. Mean annual total direct costs in all patients were €23 228 (patients with IHD: €19 479, patients with arrhythmia: €21 076, patients with HF: €34 747, patients with VDH: €48 677). Hospitalizations contributed overall to the highest part of direct costs. For patients discharged with IHD or arrhythmia, symptoms of anxiety or depression, worst heart-specific quality of life or health status, and the highest symptom burden were associated with increased economic expenditure. We found no associations in patients with HF or VHD. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes at discharge from a heart centre were associated with direct health care costs in patients with IHD and arrhythmia. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01926145.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".