MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W75774792

Health care resource use associated with integrated psychological treatment.

2006· article· en· W75774792 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helen‐Maria Vasiliadis, Catherine Briand, Alain Lesage, Daniel Reinharz, Émmanuel Stip, Luc Nicole, Pierre Lalonde

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMental healthHealth careQuality of life (healthcare)Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Ambulatory carePsychiatryNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mental health policies, advocating outpatient as well as community mental health care for the severely mentally ill, are aiming towards health system cost containment and patient quality of life. Programs with cognitive behavioral therapy, such as the Integrated Psychological Therapy (IPT), added to standard medical therapy for patients with schizophrenia have been associated with improved outcomes. A Quebec version of the IPT program was integrated in outpatient clinics and improvements were observed in overall symptoms, subjective experiences, cognitive and social functioning, and quality of life. In light of these results we deemed it relevant to describe the health system cost and patient resource use associated with the program. The costs related to IPT have not been previously reported and this study will elucidate on effective health services and budget allocation needed to include IPT. AIMS: To describe health care resource use and related costs associated with participating in an IPT program included as standard medical therapy in nine clinical settings. METHODS: A cohort of patients with schizophrenia participating in the IPT program were followed up to one year preceding the start of the program and concurrently until the end to compare the resource use and costs incurred by patients with schizophrenia during their participation. A health and social service system and patient perspective was adopted, and the medical and non-medical costs associated with the IPT program were measured. Valuation (2001 CDN dollars) was based on information provided by provincial billing systems. Statistical differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The IPT program induced a one time fixed cost (2347 dollars) for the training of mental health professionals and costs related to patient participation (1350 dollars). Our results show that there was an average decrease in health care system resource use per patient during the IPT program (26,133 dollars) as opposed to the preceding year (26,750 dollars). There was a significant decrease in the number of visits and in physician fees paid out to psychiatrists, the number of hospitalizations and related costs, and visits to the emergency department per patient during the IPT program as compared to the preceding year. No significant difference was observed in patient related costs which averaged 7295 dollars and 7537 dollars, before and during the IPT program, respectively. DISCUSSION: Although the IPT program induces a one time fixed cost for training, the integration of IPT, as part of an individualized standard medical therapy, is associated with a change from inpatient towards outpatient resource use with no significant increase in health system related costs. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Given clinical and quality of life improvements, the findings suggest that offering IPT to more patients with severe mental illness may prove more cost beneficial by decreasing the health system related costs per user in the long term. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Additional research is needed to examine in parallel the long-term clinical and cost impact of the IPT program in different clinical settings (young adults to long term mentally ill). This will elucidate to which patient population IPT is most cost-effective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→