An Economic Analysis of the Association Among Secondary Health Conditions, Health Care Costs, and Quality of Life for Persons With Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A previous analysis using the Canadian Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Community Survey data identified that there were individuals with a high number of secondary health conditions, high health care utilization, poor health outcomes, and unmet health care needs. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to estimate the annual health care costs of persons with SCI who report secondary health conditions, and to determine the association between these secondary health conditions with health care utilization and self-reported life satisfaction and quality of life. Methods: The survey respondents were divided into four groups: traumatic SCI (tSCI; those who said they received needed care and those who said they did not) and nontraumatic SCI (ntSCI; those who said they received needed care and those who said they did not). The average annual health care costs per respondent were estimated for each group. Using regression analysis, we estimated the change in average annual health care costs that were associated with an additional secondary health condition for respondents in each group. Results: Participants who reported not receiving needed care had on average 23% more secondary health conditions than those receiving needed care. The increase in average annual health care costs associated with one additional secondary health conditions was between $428 ($37-$820) (ntSCI, receiving needed care) and $1240 ($739-$1741) (tSCI, not receiving needed care). Conclusion: This study provides insight into potential cost savings associated with a reduction of secondary health conditions as well as an estimate of the reduction in health care costs associated with moving from not receiving all needed care to receiving needed care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".