Reported costs of children with medical complexity—A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examining reported costs for Children with Medical Complexity (CMCs) is essential because costing and resource utilization studies influence policy and operational decisions. Our objectives were to (1) examine how authors identified CMCs in administrative databases, (2) compare reported costs for the CMC population in different study settings, and (3) analyze author recommendations related to reported costs. We undertook a systematic search of the following databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library with a focus on CMCs as a heterogeneous group. The most common method used n = 11 (41%) to identify the CMC population in administrative data was the Complex Chronic Conditions methodology. The majority of included studies reported on health care service costs n = 24 (89%). Only n = 3 (11%) of the studies included costs from the family perspective. Author recommendations included standardizing how costs are reported and including the family perspective when making care delivery or policy decisions. Health system administrators and policymakers must consider the limitations of reported costs when assessing local costing studies or comparing costs across jurisdictions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".