MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7065826038

Examining persistency in the high-cost state among mental health high-cost patients : a population-based analysis

2020· article· en· W7065826038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWhite Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPentecostalism and Christianity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPopulationMental illnessDementiaPsychosisPercentileLongitudinal studyPsychological interventionMental health care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While most literature on high-cost health care users has evaluated this population as a whole, few studies have focused on high-cost patients with mental illness and whether they persist in the high-cost state. We sought to analyze persistent mental health high-cost patients in depth and determine predictors of persistency in the high-cost state. Methods: We used eight years of longitudinal patient-level population data (2010 to 2017) from Ontario to follow high-cost patients (those in and above the 90th percentile of the cost distribution) with mental illness. We classified high-cost patients, based on the proportion of the study period spent in the high-cost state, as persistent (6 to 8 years), sporadic (1 to 2 years) or moderate (3 to 5 years). We compared characteristics between groups and determined predictors of being a persistent mental health high-cost patient. Results: Among 52,638 mental health high-cost patients, 18,149 (34.5%) were persistent high-cost patients. Persistent mental health high-cost patients had higher mean annual costs of care ($44,714, 95% CI $43,724 to $45,703) compared to sporadic ($31,055, 95% CI $30,359 to 31,751) and moderate ($23,205, 95% CI $22,741 to $23,668) patients, largely due to psychiatric hospitalizations. Persistent mental health high-cost patients were more likely to be female, older, long-term residents, living in low-income or urban areas, or to have comorbidities. The strongest predictors of persistent (v. sporadic) high-cost status were HIV (RRR 4.32, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.06), psychosis (RRR 3.41, 95% CI 3.25 to 3.58), and dementia (RRR 3.21, 95% CI 2.81 to 3.68). Interpretation: Among mental health high-cost patients, persistence in the high-cost state was mainly determined by psychosis and other comorbidities. Quality of care interventions directed at the management of psychosis and multimorbidity, as well as preventive interventions to target patients with mental illness before they become persistent high-cost patients are needed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWhite Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)Same topicPentecostalism and Christianity StudiesFrench-language works237,207