Costs of oxygen therapy for interstitial lung disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A retrospective study from a universal healthcare system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVES: Oxygen is prescribed for patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study compared the per capita financial costs of home oxygen therapy in ILD and COPD.METHODS Adults with either ILD or COPD who initiated home oxygen between 2010-2017 at the Vancouver Coastal Health Home Oxygen Program were analyzed retrospectively using a chart review. The monthly cost of oxygen equipment, home visits by oxygen providers and respiratory therapists, as well as overnight oximetry studies, were collected for each year of oxygen utilization, adjusted to 2018 Canadian Dollars. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to compare monthly oxygen costs and flow rates between the two diseases.MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A total of 99 patients with ILD and 1017 with COPD initiated oxygen therapy between 2010-2017. Both cohorts had a higher per capita cost of home oxygen in month 1 compared to months 2-24 (ILD: ($202.57 ± $88.88 versus $142.21 ± $59.01, P < 0.001; COPD: $222.85 ± $102.52 versus $156.65 ± $60.50, P < 0.001). COPD was more costly after the initial month, corresponding to greater frequency of using continuous long-term oxygen compared to oxygen only with ambulation. Patients with ILD had higher mean ambulatory oxygen flow rate for all months (P < 0.001).CONCLUSION Per capita costs of home oxygen therapy were comparable between ILD and COPD, with the main difference in costs related to the use of ambulatory versus continuous long-term oxygen. These findings will aid healthcare budget planning for both ILD and COPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".