Pharmaceutical care for pulmonary tuberculosis treatment in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Three objectives were to compare: 1) treatment success; 2) healthcare resource uses; and 3) out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, indirect costs, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with pharmaceutical care, home visit, and modified DOT in three referral hospitals in Songkhla province, Thailand. Methods Project 1&2 were retrospective cohort study collecting data from 1,398 pulmonary TB patients who started treatment between October 2010 and September 2013. Project 3 was a prospective study collecting data from 104 pulmonary TB patients who started treatment between January and May 2014. The propensity score matching and generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to compare the outcomes associated with three supervision approaches by adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results Project1: The differences in treatment success rate were not statistically significant when comparing pharmaceutical care with either home visit (success rate: 92.76% versus 94.74%) or modified DOT (success rate 93.37% for both). Project2: The mean direct healthcare costs to public payer were $519.96 (95% confidence interval (CI): $437.31 to $625.58) for pharmaceutical care, $1,020.39 (CI:$911.13 to $1,154.11) for home visit, and $887.79 (CI:$824.28 to $955.91) for modified DOT. Project3: Mean OOP expenditures were $907.56 (CI:$603.80 to $1,269.41), $148.47 (CI:$109.49 to $194.89), and $95.35 (CI:$69.11 to $129.63), while the indirect costs were $1,925.68 (CI:$922.06 to $3,284.94), $2,393.66 (CI:$1,435.01 to $3,501.98), and $833.33 (CI:$453.87 to $1,263.45), for those receiving pharmaceutical care, home visit, and SAT, respectively. Mean health utility scores at the baseline and the end of treatment were 0.679 and 0.830, 0.713 and 0.905, and 0.708 and 0.913 for the patients receiving pharmaceutical care, home visit, and SAT, respectively. Conclusion Pharmaceutical care is clinically and economically effective compared with the other strategies studied. A large-scale prospective study is warranted to strengthen evidence to support policy making in TB management in Thailand.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".