Cost analysis of an intensive home follow-up program for first-time post-myocardial infarction patients and their families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The general goal of this research was to determine the effectiveness of a home follow-up program in order to acquire guidance in how to plan the future structure and contents of post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients' care and rehabilitation. The specific aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the program in reducing the rate of rehospitalization of first-time post-MI patients when measured at six weeks and six months post-discharge.; Hypothesis: The supportive-educative home follow-up program will prove to be cost-effective by indicating an inverse correlation with the cost of post-MI patients being rehospitalized for unplanned and preventable diagnoses.; Design and setting: Cost analysis, using data from a one year randomized control clinical trial conducted in a small urban hospital in eastern Canada. An experimental post test only control group design, including the process of randomization, was used in this study.; Subjects: 62 people admitted with a diagnosis of a first-time acute MI during a one-year period with no co-morbidity likely to affect rehabilitation.; Main outcome measures: Health care costs.; Results: Early supportive home follow-up reduced inpatient rehospitalization by more than half (three rehospitalizations vs seven rehospitalizations) and reduced the average length of stay (five days vs seven days). Cost analysis demonstrated that intense home follow-up in the time immediately following patient discharge could still produce cost savings to the health care system.; Conclusion: Intensive home follow-up provided a costeffective alternative to traditional cardiac rehabilitation programs; however, a larger study is required to assess the generalizability of the results and long-term cost effectiveness.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".