International depiction of the cost of functional independence limitations among older adults living in the community: a systematic review and cost-of-impairment study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Functional independence limitations restrict older adult self-sufficiency and can reduce quality of life. This systematic review and cost of impairment study examined the costs of functional independence limitations among community dwelling older adults to society, the health care system, and the person. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines this systematic review included community dwelling older adults aged 60 years and older with functional independence limitations. Databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EconLit, NHS EED, Embase, CINAHL, AgeLine, and MEDLINE) were searched between 1990 and June 2020. Two reviewers extracted information on study characteristics and cost outcomes including mean annual costs of functional independence limitations per person for each cost perspective (2020 US prices). Quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results 85 studies were included. The mean annual total costs per person (2020 US prices) were: $27,380.74 (95% CI: [$4075.53, $50,685.96]) for societal, $24,195.52 (95% CI: [$9679.77, $38,711.27]) for health care system, and $7455.49 (95% CI: [$2271.45, $12,639.53]) for personal. Individuals with cognitive markers of functional independence limitations accounts for the largest mean costs per person across all perspectives. Variations across studies included: cost perspective, measures quantifying functional independence limitations, cost items reported, and time horizon. Conclusions This study sheds light on the importance of targeting cognitive markers of functional independence limitations as they accounted for the greatest costs across all economic perspectives.
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 | 0.024 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".