Cost–utility analysis of a palliative care program in Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The economic assessment of health care models in palliative care promotes their global development. The purpose of the study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a palliative care program (named Contigo) with that of conventional care from the perspective of a health benefit plan administrator company, Sanitas, in Colombia. METHODS: The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were estimated using micro-costing in a retrospective, analytical cross-sectional study on the care of terminally ill patients enrolled in a palliative care program. A 6-month time horizon prior to death was used. The EQ-5D-3 L questionnaire (EQ-5D-3 L) and the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL) were used to measure the quality of life. RESULTS: The study included 43 patients managed within the program and 16 patients who received conventional medical management. The program was less expensive than the conventional practice (difference of 1,924.35 US dollars (USD), P = 0.18). When compared to the last 15 days, there is a higher perception of quality of life, which yielded 0.25 in the EQ-5D-3 L (p < 0.01) and 1.55 in the MQOL (P < 0.01). The ICUR was negative and the INMB was positive. CONCLUSION: Because the Contigo program reduces costs while improving quality of life, it is considered to be net cost-saving and a model with value in health care. Greater availability of palliative care programs, such as Contigo, in Colombia can help reduce existing gaps in access to universal palliative care health coverage, resulting in more cost-effective 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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".