Real-World Cost-Consequence Analysis of an Integrated Chronic Disease Management Program in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An integrated disease management program otherwise called a clinical pathway was recently implemented in Saskatchewan, Canada for patients living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study compared the real-world costs and consequences of the COPD clinical pathway program with 2 control treatment programs. The study comprised adult COPD patients in Regina (clinical pathway group, N = 759) matched on propensity scores to 2 independent control groups of similar adults in (1) Regina (historical controls, N = 759) and (2) Saskatoon (contemporaneous controls, N = 759). The study measures included patient-level healthcare costs and acute COPD exacerbation outcomes, both tracked in population-based administrative health data over a one-year follow-up period. Analyses included Cox proportional hazards models and differences in means between groups. The bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap method was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI). The COPD pathway patients had lower risks of moderate (hazard ratio [HR] =0.57, 95% CI [0.40-0.83]) and severe (HR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.28-0.66]) exacerbations compared to the historical control group, but similar risks compared with the contemporaneous control group. The COPD pathway patients experienced fewer episodes of exacerbations compared with the historical control group (mean difference = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.40, -0.20]) and the contemporaneous control group (mean difference = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, -0.03]). Average annual healthcare costs in Canadian dollars were marginally higher among patients in the COPD clinical pathway (mean = $10 549, standard deviation [SD] =$18 149) than those in the contemporaneous control group ($8841, SD = $17 120), but comparable to the historical control group ($10 677, SD = $21 201). The COPD pathway provides better outcomes at about the same costs when compared to the historical controls, but only slightly better outcomes and at a marginally higher cost when compared to the contemporaneous controls.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".