Community factors, hospital characteristics and inter-regional outcome variations following acute myocardial infarction in Canada.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: While various community and hospital characteristics have been demonstrated to have an impact on individual cardiovascular outcomes, the extent to which such factors account for inter-regional and interhospital outcome variations following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of community and hospital factors on individual AMI outcomes and procedure use, and to determine the extent to which such characteristics account for inter-regional and interinstitutional AMI outcome and procedure variations across Canada. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with AMI between April 1, 1997, and March 31, 2000, across Canada were examined. The community and hospital characteristics studied included three indicators of socioeconomic status, two indicators of ethnicity, rural-urban status of residence, hospital academic affiliation, and the presence or absence of on-site angiography or revascularization capabilities at the admitting institution. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, one-year cardiac readmissions and 30-day revascularization rates post-AMI. All analyses were adjusted for age, sex and age-sex interaction. The relationships between community/hospital factors and individual outcomes were examined using random-effects hierarchical logistic regression analysis, while the relationships between community/hospital characteristics and inter-regional/hospital risk-adjusted outcomes were examined using least squares regression and the coefficient of determination (r2). RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic factors, a patient's neighbourhood socioeconomic status was inversely correlated with the likelihood of death and downstream cardiac readmissions (P<0.001); patients residing in lower educated regions were less likely to receive revascularization post-AMI (P<0.001). Patients living in regions with higher concentrations of new immigrants and/or visible minorities, as well as those admitted to academically affiliated hospitals or hospitals with on-site procedural capacity, had fewer cardiac readmissions (P<0.001) and greater use of revascularization post-AMI (P<0.001) after adjusting for age and sex. Despite their associations with outcomes on an individual patient level, community and hospital factors explained no more than 7% of the variation in the risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals or regions. Finally, adjustments for community and hospital factors and procedure use, beyond adjustments for age and sex alone, had marginal impact on a province's risk-adjusted outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While community and hospital factors are important determinants of individual outcomes after AMI, they account for only a minimal degree of outcome variation across regions. Further studies are required to examine whether AMI outcome variations in Canada are explained by differences in patient clinical profiles and/or by differences in the decision-making behaviours of providers across jurisdictions.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».