MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The PaCES Study: Cost effectiveness of an early palliative care intervention in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

2023· article· en· W4388203849 on OpenAlexafffund
Aynharan Sinnarajah, Mahmood Zarrabi, Madalene A. Earp, Patricia Biondo, Andrew Fong, Kelly Blacklaws, Mohammadreza Pakseresht, Bethany Kaposhi, Lorraine Shack, Sharon Watanabe, Patricia A. Tang, Marc Kerba, Jessica Simon

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Oncology Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careColorectal cancerIntervention (counseling)CancerHealth careQuality of life (healthcare)Ambulatory careEmergency departmentEmergency medicineFamily medicineOutpatient clinicNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

20 Background: An early palliative care (PC) pragmatic trial conducted in outpatient cancer clinics for patients living with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), led to a 17% increase in early referrals (more than 3 months before death). This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of this trial. A lack of timely palliative care is associated with poorer quality of life, poorer symptom control and fewer days spent at home. Improving on this time toxicity is an important part of early palliative care. Methods: This pragmatic controlled before-and-after study was performed in 18 outpatient cancer clinics in two tertiary cancer centers in neighboring metropolitan cities. Baseline phase was from April 2017 to December 2018 with intervention phase only occurring in 1 of the cities, from April 2019 to December 2020. Intervention consisted of systematically screening patients for unmet PC needs, adding a community-based PC nurse specialist and templated ‘shared care’ letters sent from oncologists to primary care providers. Effectiveness was defined as the number of days spent at home in the last 90 days of life, by subtracting days in hospital, residential hospice, emergency department and clinic. A healthcare system perspective was used to calculate total costs in all sectors including hospital, cancer care, home care, palliative care and physician visits. Healthcare outcomes and costs were analysed using a difference-in-differences (DID) method, while accounting for geographic variations and other covariates. Results: A total of 695 decedents were included. There was a 15% decrease in hospital stay and 18% decrease in chemotherapy days in last 90 days of life. The intervention was cost dominant with an overall DID increase of 2.3 community days with an average cost reduction of C$1,942.17 per patient day in the community. Adjusted analysis showed that this difference was not statistically significant. A non-parametric random resampling of the population with 1,000 reiterations (bootstrapping) showed that the likelihood of the program remaining dominant was 69%. The biggest cost contributors were inpatient acute care (53.6%) and residential hospice (33.6%). Conclusions: Integrating early palliative care services into the care of CRC patients’ shows potential for cost savings and more days spent in the community in the last 90 days of life. Measuring time toxicity is a potentially important outcome in early palliative care trials while examining impact on cost.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.419 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Oncology PracticeSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207