Skip to main content

Table 2 Costs per episode for influenza outpatients and associated risk factors in China, 2013 (US$)a

From: The economic burden of influenza-associated outpatient visits and hospitalizations in China: a retrospective survey

Characteristic

Direct cost

Indirect costs

Total costs

Multiple linear regression

Medical costs

Non-medical costs

(95 % Confidence interval)b

Total (n = 529)

70 (69)

26 (44)

59 (59)

155 (122)

 

Gender

p = 0.141

p = 0.904

p = 0.333

p = 0.814

 

 Female (n = 248)

64 (52)

28 (49)

62 (65)

153 (116)

Reference

 Male (n = 281)

75 (81)

25 (40)

57 (52)

157 (127)

−6 (−24,12)

Age group (years)

p = 0.062

p < 0.001

p = 0.006

p = 0.003

 

  < 5 (n = 122)

85 (84)

36 (53)

75 (75)

196 (152)

Reference

 5–14 (n = 232)

63 (68)

28 (43)

61 (61)

153 (121)

−52 (−89,−22)f

 15–59 (n = 160)

68 (59)

17 (39)

45 (34)

130 (91)

−81 (−119,−52)f

  ≥ 60 (n = 15)

61 (41)

10 (13)

58 (41)

129 (62)

−104 (−151,−63)f

Risk statusc

p=0.006

p=0.228

p=0.163

p=0.009

 

 Low risk (n = 412)

64 (57)

26 (44)

57 (54)

146 (111)

Reference

 High risk (n = 117)

90 (98)

28 (45)

68 (71)

186 (151)

40 (16,76)f

Area

p = 0.197

p = 0.406

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

 

 Urban area (n = 438)

69 (62)

25 (42)

67 (61)

161 (119)

Reference

 Rural area (n = 91)

72 (96)

33 (56)

23 (23)

128 (132)

−26 (−53,14)

Region

p = 0.013

p = 0.403

p < 0.001

p = 0.004

 

 East China (n = 292)

72 (67)

26 (48)

71 (64)

169 (124)

Reference

 North China (n = 17)d

82 (53)

13 (20)

38 (19)

133 (78)

−45 (−95,−3)f

 Central China (n = 52)

69 (65)

20 (27)

40 (36)

129 (95)

−64 (−98,−31)f

 South China (n = 64)

48 (45)

27 (45)

45 (37)

120 (100)

−51 (−78,−22)f

 Southwest China (n = 68)

65 (48)

26 (37)

50 (67)

140 (103)

−38 (−68,−8)f

 Northwest China (n = 36)

97 (132)

38 (52)

44 (46)

179 (191)

−5 (−52,71)

Hospital

p < 0.001

p = 0.745

p = 0.002

p = 0.002

 

 Level 3 (n = 298)

73 (60)

28 (50)

66 (67)

167 (124)

Reference

 Level 2 (n = 119)

78 (100)

22 (35)

56 (45)

156 (138)

3 (−21,33)

 Level 1 and lower (n = 112)

51 (48)

26 (38)

45 (43)

122 (88)

−34 (−61,−10)f

Virus type

p = 0.868

p = 0.973

p = 0.220

p = 0.565

 

 Untypede (n = 307)

71 (79)

25 (42)

60 (62)

157 (130)

Reference

 Influenza A (n = 164)

67 (53)

27 (50)

61 (56)

156 (106)

−10 (−31,13)

 Influenza B (n = 58)

70 (57)

27 (42)

47 (41)

144 (119)

2 (−25,41)

  1. aMean (standard deviation) was presented to facilitate their use in economic evaluations despite the skew in sample distributions of costs. However, Rank-sum test was used for comparing two samples, and Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparing three or more groups because the cost distribution is too right skewed
  2. bCompared to the reference, absolute increase or decrease of the total cost (in US$). And we obtained the bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap percentile confidence interval using the R function “boot.ci”
  3. cRisk status: high risk patients refer to those with underlying medical conditions including: chronic respiratory disease, asthma, chronic cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic liver disease, and chronic renal disease, etc. Other patients without these underlying diseases are low risk patients
  4. dNorth China: 2 patients from Northeast China were grouped into North China
  5. eUntyped: Laboratory tests for influenza virus type identification were not conducted
  6. f p < 0.05: significant differences
Back to article page

Infectious Diseases of Poverty

ISSN: 2049-9957

Contact us