MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401179113 · doi:10.1007/s43678-024-00738-9

Economic evaluation of the “paramedics and palliative care: bringing vital services to Canadians” program compared to the status quo

2024· article· en· W4401179113 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐Éric Tarride, Douglass J. Stennett, A. C. Coronado, Raquel Shaw Moxam, Jean Hai Ein Yong, A. Carter, Caroline E. Cameron, Feng Xie, Michel Grignon, Hsien Seow, Gord Blackhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsImpactNova Scotia Health AuthorityWestern UniversityCanadian Partnership Against CancerCanadian Virtual UniversityMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentrePrograms for Assessment of Technology in Health Research InstituteSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonDalhousie UniversityCARE Canada
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerHealthcare Excellence CanadaOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsStatus quoMedicinePalliative careMedical emergencyEmergency medical servicesNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Based on programs implemented in 2011-2013 in three Canadian provinces to improve the support paramedics provide to people receiving palliative care, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and Healthcare Excellence Canada provided support and funding from 2018 to 2022 to spread this approach in Canada. The study objectives were to conduct an economic evaluation of "the Program" compared to the status quo. METHODS: A probabilistic decision analytic model was used to compare the expected costs, the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the return on investment associated with the Program compared to the status quo from a publicly funded healthcare payer perspective. Effectiveness data and Program costs, expressed in 2022 Canadian dollars, from each jurisdiction were supplemented with literature data. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses varying key model assumptions were conducted. RESULTS: Analyses of 5416 9-1-1 calls from five jurisdictions where paramedics provided support to people with palliative care needs between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2022 indicated that 60% of the 9-1-1 calls under the Program enabled people to avoid transport to the emergency department and receive palliative care at home. Treating people at home saved paramedics an average of 31 min (range from 15 to 67). The Program was associated with cost savings of $2773 (95% confidence interval [CI] $1539-$4352) and an additional 0.00069 QALYs (95% CI 0.00024-0.00137) per 9-1-1 palliative care call. The Program return on investment was $4.6 for every $1 invested. Threshold analyses indicated that in order to be cost saving, 33% of 9-1-1 calls should be treated at home under the Program, the Program should generate a minimum of 97 calls per year with each call costing no more than $2773. CONCLUSION: The Program was cost-effective in the majority of the scenarios examined. These results support the implementation of paramedic-based palliative care at home programs in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→