MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311206227 · doi:10.1080/13696998.2022.2157596

Socioeconomic burden of schizophrenia: a targeted literature review of types of costs and associated drivers across 10 countries

2022· review· en· W4311206227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Kotzeva, Deepali Mittal, Supriya Desai, Davneet Judge, Kunal Samanta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Economics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSocioeconomic statusSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryDemographyEnvironmental healthGerontologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Schizophrenia has the highest median societal cost per patient of all mental disorders. This review summarizes the different costs/cost drivers (cost components) associated with schizophrenia in 10 countries, including all cost types and stakeholder perspectives, and highlights aspects of disease associated with greatest costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Targeted literature review based on a search of published research from 2006 to 2021 in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan, Brazil, and China. RESULTS: Sixty-four published articles (primary studies and literature reviews) were included. Comprehensive data were available on costs in schizophrenia overall, with very limited data for individual countries except the US. Most data is related to direct and not indirect costs, with extremely scarce data for several key cost components (adverse events, suicide, long-term care). Total schizophrenia-related per person per year (PPPY) costs were $2,004-94,229, with considerable variability among countries. Indirect costs were the main cost driver (50-90% of all costs), ranging from $1,852 to $62,431 PPPY. However, indirect costs are not collected systematically or incorporated in health technology assessments. Total schizophrenia-related PPPY direct costs were $4,394-31,798, with inpatient cost as the main cost driver (∼20-99% of direct costs). Intangible costs were not reported. Despite limited evidence, total schizophrenia-related costs were higher in patients with than without negative symptoms, largely due to increased costs of medication and medical visits. LIMITATIONS: As this was not a systematic review, prioritization of studies may have resulted in exclusion of potentially relevant data. All costs were converted to USD but not corrected for inflation or subjected to a gross domestic product deflator. CONCLUSIONS: Direct costs are most commonly reported in schizophrenia. The substantial underreporting of indirect and intangible costs undervalues the true economic burden of schizophrenia from a payer, patient, and societal perspective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0260.026
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations51
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EconomicsSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207