Hospital Costing Methods: Four Decades of Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to identify and classify the costing methods used in hospitals in recent decades and to analyze the research carried out in this area, to identify and characterize the main lines of research and the research paradigms used. To this end, a systematic literature review was carried out, mapping 1067 articles collected from the ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases. The articles were selected by two independent researchers. To ensure the quality of the SLR, AMSTAR 2 was used as well as matrices for quantitative studies, and for qualitative articles. Additionally, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review process was followed to systematize the article selection process. Of the 1067 articles screened, 172 articles met the inclusion criteria. The results point to a growing interest among researchers and a predominance of the positive paradigm, albeit with an increase in interpretative research. There is a growing production of descriptive analyses of hospital processes and the costing of pathologies, with a predominance of the ABC method and analyses of costs and reimbursements for diagnosis-related groups. As a contribution, a conceptual model is proposed that aims to help the performance of hospital institutions, as well as a proposal for a future agenda based on this model.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it