MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115299819

Direct healthcare costs associated with a multi-component COPD exacerbation prevention management intervention

2024· article· en· W7115299819 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Portal (King's College London) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsToronto East General HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersArts and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsCOPDIntervention (counseling)Health careExacerbationDisease managementMEDLINEPulmonary disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Healthcare costs attributed to COPD have been estimated at $4.7 trillion globally in the next 30 years.With the global burden of COPD rising, identification of interventions that might lead to healthcare cost savings is an imperative.Although many studies report the effect of COPD selfmanagement interventions on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization, little data describes their effect on healthcare costs.Methods: Using data linkage and established case costing methods with provincial Canadian health databases, we established public healthcare costs (acute and community) for the twelve months following randomization for the 462 participants enrolled in our randomised controlled trial of the Program of Integrated Care for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Multiple Comorbidities (PIC COPD+).Results: Total median (IQR) in-hospital costs in the 12 months follow up for all (intervention and control) 462 trial participants were CAN$4,769 ($417 to $16,834) (equivalent to USD$3,566 ($312 to $12,588).Total costs incurred in the community were higher at $8,011 ($4,749 to $13,831) (equivalent to USD$5,990 ($4,749 to $10,342).Controlling for sex, income quintile, Johns Hopkins Aggregated Diagnosis Groups score, and living in an urban locality, we found lower community healthcare costs but no differences in acute care costs for participants receiving our multi-component COPD exacerbation prevention management intervention compared to usual care.Conclusions: Controlling for important confounders we found lower public community healthcare costs but no difference in acute healthcare costs with our multi-component COPD exacerbation prevention management intervention compared to usual care.Community healthcare costs were almost double those incurred compared to acute healthcare costs.Given this finding, although most COPD exacerbation management interventions generally focus on reducing the use of acute care, interventions that enable health care cost savings in the community require further exploration.

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)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Portal (King's College London)Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207