MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405203300 · doi:10.2196/56766

Estimating Patient and Family Costs and CO2 Emissions for Telehealth and In-Person Health Care Appointments in British Columbia, Canada: Geospatial Mixed Methods Study

2024· article· en· W4405203300 on OpenAlexaffabout
Graham Mainer-Pearson, Kurtis Stewart, John Pawlovich, Linda Riches, Sonya Cressman, Kendall Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsVancouver Community CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintGeospatial analysisHealth careEnvironmental healthGeographyMedical emergencyBusinessMedicineComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Patients inevitably incur some cost for accessing health care, even in universal systems such as Canada. The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically shifted health care delivery from in-person to telehealth services, also shifting the proportion of costs offset by patients and their families by reducing the need to travel to in-person appointments. Objective This study aimed to develop a method for estimating the costs patients and their families incur and CO2 emissions attributed to travel needed for emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and physician appointments. Methods We present a method to evaluate the costs associated with in-person and telehealth care appointments from the perspective of patients, their families, and the environment. We used ED locations, road distances, and duration of appointment to account for costs paid by patients (ie, lost productivity, informal caregiving, and out-of-pocket expenses) attributed to travel to receive medical care. Costs to the environment were evaluated by calculating the amount of CO2 emitted per medical visit. Using our costs calculated per visit, we apply our method to calculate total patient costs for a simulated population over 1 year. Results Our method estimates that patients in British Columbia pay up to $300 (2023 CAD, CAD $1=US $0.86) on average to attend an in-person ED visit, depending on where they live; $166 may be attributed to lost productivity, $83 to informal caregiving, and $50 to out-of-pocket expenses. These estimates are higher than most observed cost estimates. In addition, avoiding in-person care diverts up to 13 kg of CO2 per medical visit, depending on the distance and frequency of travel to appointments. This translates to up to $0.70 in carbon costs per visit, or cumulatively $44,120 per year in British Columbia, conventionally not included in patient cost estimates. Conclusions We present a novel method for estimating patient-incurred costs and CO2 emissions from accessing health care and apply it to estimate that every year, patients in British Columbia pay upwards of 30 million dollars to access health care services, primarily for medical travel. Our method adds to the economic evaluation literature by providing a more comprehensive and context-modifiable calculation of patient costs that will allow for more informed decision-making regarding health care services.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207