Three-year-cohort-study: clinical and cost effectiveness of an inpatient psychiatric rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There has been a resurgence of interest in psychiatric rehabilitation to cater to patients with chronic and complex mental illnesses. Aims: This study is aimed at examining patients' characteristics and the prevalence of psychiatric and non-psychiatric comorbidity in a local inpatient rehabilitation service, as well as to investigate the impact of the whole-system approach to rehabilitation on future utilization of mental health services and to analyze the cost-effectiveness and quality of this service. Method: Patients managed over 3 years in a psychiatric rehabilitation inpatient unit were self-controlled; they were retrospectively (pre-rehabilitation) and prospectively (post-rehabilitation) examined for readmission rate, length of stay (LOS), and emergency room (ER) visits. Relevant information was retrieved from Discharge Abstract Database (DAD), Patient Registration System (STAR), and Emergency Department Information System (EDIS). The quality of care in the rehabilitation unit was examined using the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC), and the cost analysis was conducted using data obtained from a single-payer government medical service insurance (MSI) billing system. Results: < 0.0001), respectively. There were substantial subsequent cost savings in the post-rehabilitation year. Conclusion and implications for practice: In the 3-year study, an inpatient psychiatric rehabilitation service in Nova Scotia, Canada, resulted in the successful discharge of most patients with severe and persistent mental illness to more socially inclusive environments. It also reduced their post-rehabilitation mental health service utilization, hence greatly enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of these services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".