MétaCan
← tous les travaux

Understanding the hospital safety net

2025· article· en· 0 citations· W4408576404 sur OpenAlex· 10.5489/cuaj.9038

Pourquoi ce travail est-il 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.

Revue canadienneIl a paru dans une revue canadienne.

Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Le tri à trois modèles

les 1 000 travaux triés →

Les trois modèles l'ont jugé hors champ.

strate : venue_new · poids de sondage : 2684.25 (l'échantillon est stratifié ; tout taux calculé sans le poids est faux)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre : empirical
porte sur le Canada: non
confiance: high

Health services study of prostate cancer treatment at safety net hospitals.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre : empirical
porte sur le Canada: non
confiance: high

The study examines hospital treatment disparities for prostate cancer, not research itself.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre : empirical
porte sur le Canada: non
confiance: high

Health-services study of prostate-cancer treatment at safety-net hospitals, clinical care not research.

Résumé

INTRODUCTION: Safety net hospitals (SNHs) care for a substantial population of vulnerable patients and are often resource-limited. These limitations may impact treatment decisions for high-risk prostate cancer (hPCa). We performed the first population-based analysis examining SNH status and treatment decisions for localized hPCa. METHODS: percentile of Medicaid and uninsured caseload. Non-curative-intent treatment was defined as androgen deprivation monotherapy (ADT) or no treatment. Outcomes assessed were treatment choice and overall survival (OS) by SNH status. RESULTS: A total of 95 747 patients with hPCa were included; 112 hospitals were identified as SNHs, with mean Medicaid/uninsured caseload of 24.4% compared to 3.2% at non-SNHs (p<0.01). Patients at SNHs were independently associated with greater odds of non-curative-intent treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.2, p<0.01). Results were consistent across subgroups: private insurance (OR 2.2, p<0.01), age <65 (OR 2.3, p<0.01), and at academic centers (OR 1.9, p<0.01). There was no difference in OS among SNHs and non-SNHs when patients received curative treatment. Among patients who did not receive curative treatment, OS was greater at SNHs (hazard ratio 0.82, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at SNHs were more likely to receive non-curative treatment independent of known socioeconomic risk factors. Private insurance or treatment at academic centers did not mitigate these disparities. Increased resources may be needed at SNHs, especially in the context of healthcare expansion, which may further strain these facilities.

Conservé avec la notice de tri, où il sert de preuve aux étiquettes ci-dessus.

La notice

Revue
Canadian Urological Association Journal
Thématique
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Domaine
Medicine
Établissements canadiens
Organismes subventionnaires
Mots-clés
Safety netNet (polyhedron)BusinessMedicineMathematicsEnvironmental health
Résumé présent dans OpenAlex
oui