Impacts of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Care Pathway on Healthcare Utilization and Costs: A Matched Multiple Control Cohort Study in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the real-world impacts of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care pathway program on healthcare utilization and costs in Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: A difference-in-differences evaluation of a real-life deployment of a COPD care pathway, using patient-level administrative health data in Saskatchewan, was conducted. The intervention group (n = 759) included adults (35+ years) with spirometry-confirmed COPD diagnosis recruited into the care pathway program in Regina between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019. The 2 control groups comprised adults (35+ years) with COPD who lived in Saskatoon during the same period (n = 759) or Regina between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 (n = 759) who did not participate in the care pathway. RESULTS: Compared with the individuals in the Saskatoon control groups, individuals in the COPD care pathway group had shorter inpatient hospital length of stay (average treatment effect on the treated [ATT] -0.46, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.04) but a higher number of general practitioner visits (ATT 1.46, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.79) and specialist physician visits (ATT 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.07). Regarding healthcare costs, individuals in the care pathway group had higher COPD-related specialist visit costs (ATT $81.70, 95% CI $59.45 to $103.96) but lower COPD-related outpatient drug dispensation costs (ATT -$4.81, 95% CI -$9.34 to -$0.27). CONCLUSIONS: The care pathway reduced inpatient hospital length of stay, but increased general practitioner and specialist physician visits for COPD-related services within the first year of implementation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".