MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2122061087 · doi:10.22605/rrh1349

Rural/urban differences in health care utilization and place of death for persons with respiratory illness in the last year of life

2010· article· en· W2122061087 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueRural and Remote Health · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Saskatchewan
Organismes subventionnairesMinistry of Health, SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
Mots-clésMedicineCOPDResidenceRural areaMarital statusCause of deathHealth carePopulationDemographyComorbidityGerontologyCohortDiseaseEnvironmental healthPsychiatryInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Respiratory illness is a leading cause of death worldwide, with rates that will continue to escalate into the foreseeable future. Rural residents have an increased risk of dying from some forms of respiratory disease, although little is known about the healthcare utilization or location of death for persons with advanced respiratory illness in rural settings. The purpose of this study was to examine rural-urban differences in healthcare utilization and location of death for residents of Saskatchewan, Canada, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or lung cancer in the last 12 months of life. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken of 1098 patients who died in 2004 with a cause of death recorded as COPD or lung cancer in administrative health data from Saskatchewan Health. Decedents were classified as residents of rural/remote (< or =9,999 population size), small urban (10 000-99 999) or urban (> or =100 000) locations and analysis conducted using this primary variable of interest. Comparisons were made between the three groups in terms of demographic characteristics, healthcare utilization (physician visits, length of stay, hospitalizations, institutional care, home care, transitions between care settings) and location of death (hospital, long-term care [LTC] or home). RESULTS: The study population was 57% male with a mean age of 77 years (SD=11). Demographic characteristics, underlying cause of death and number of comorbid conditions were similar between urban, small urban and rural/remote groups. After adjustment for area of residence, underlying cause of death (UCOD), age group, sex, marital status, and comorbidity, urban, small urban and rural/remote residents were comparable in terms of the likelihood of: any hospitalizations, having had 5 or more transfers between settings, and dying in hospital. The proportion of home deaths in rural settings was 15.4%, and was comparable to the rate in urban settings (16.3%). Urban residents were more likely to have had 24 or more physician visits in the last year of life compared with small urban (OR=0.52, 95% CI=.37-.74) or rural/remote residents (OR=0.52, 95% CI=.40-.69), while rural/remote residents were more likely to have received any institutional LTC (OR=1.40, 95% CI=1.03-1.90) than the other groups. Hospital as a location of death was more likely for those with a UCOD of cardiovascular disease (OR=1.84, 95% CI=1.24-2.71), but was less likely for those aged 80-85 years (OR=0.46, 95% CI=.31-.69), those aged more than 85 years (OR=0.28, 95% CI=.19-.42) and those who had never married (OR=0.48, 95% CI=.29-.78). Residents of rural/remote areas were significantly less likely than those in urban or small urban settings to receive any home care (OR=0.74, 95% CI=.56-.97), any home palliative care (OR=0.29, 95% CI=.19-.45) or home physiotherapy services (OR=0.09, 95% CI=.03-.25). Rural/remote residents were, however, much more likely to receive home supportive care (OR=1.60, 95% CI=1.17-2.19) and home meal preparation (OR=2.51, 95% CI=1.44-4.39). CONCLUSIONS: While the healthcare needs of persons with respiratory illness in the last year of life were likely to be similar between locations, rural-urban differences were apparent in the number of primary care physician visits and in access to and the nature of home care services provided. Significantly fewer physician visits were made by residents of small urban or rural remote locations compared with those in urban settings, although additional research is needed to determine the reasons for this discrepancy. The likelihood of receiving home care services and professional home care services such as palliative care and physiotherapy was significantly lower for persons in rural/remote locations. The challenges experienced by rural remote regions with supporting patients in the community may have led to the increased likelihood of admission to institutional LTC noted for this group compared with residents of urban and small urban settings. The low home death rates is both urban and rural settings may pose particular hardship for rural families who may need to travel extensively or temporarily relocate to be closer to the hospital where their loved one is dying. Further investigation of issues related to differences in quality of care and unmet health care needs between rural and non-rural settings will strengthen the evidence base to allow equitable care at the end of life.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,056
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,729

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,063
Tête enseignante GPT0,341
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle