Financial barriers and adverse clinical outcomes among patients with cardiovascular-related chronic diseases: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some patients with cardiovascular-related chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease report financial barriers to achieving optimal health. Previous surveys report that the perception of having a financial barrier is associated with self-reported adverse clinical outcomes. We sought to confirm these findings using linked survey and administrative data to determine, among patients with cardiovascular-related chronic diseases, if there is an association between perceived financial barriers and the outcomes of: (1) disease-related hospitalizations, (2) all-cause mortality and (3) inpatient healthcare costs. METHODS: We used ten cycles of the nationally representative Canadian Community Health Survey (administered between 2000 and 2011) to identify a cohort of adults aged 45 and older with hypertension, diabetes, heart disease or stroke. Perceived financial barriers to various aspects of chronic disease care and self-management were identified (including medications, healthful food and home care) from the survey questions, using similar questions to those used in previous studies. The cohort was linked to administrative data sources for outcome ascertainment (Discharge Abstract Database, Canadian Mortality Database, Patient Cost Estimator). We utilized Poisson regression techniques, adjusting for potential confounding variables (age, sex, education, multimorbidity, smoking status), to assess for associations between perceived financial barriers and disease-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. We used gross costing methodology and a variety of modelling approaches to assess the impact of financial barriers on hospital costs. RESULTS: We identified a cohort of 120,752 individuals over the age of 45 years with one or more of the following: hypertension, diabetes, heart disease or stroke. One in ten experienced financial barriers to at least one aspect of their care, with the two most common being financial barriers to accessing medications and healthful food. Even after adjustment, those with at least one financial barrier had an increased rate of disease-related hospitalization and mortality compared to those without financial barriers with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.29-1.44) and 1.24 (1.16-1.32), respectively. Furthermore, having a financial barrier to care was associated with 30% higher inpatient costs compared to those without financial barriers. DISCUSSION: This study, using novel linked national survey and administrative data, demonstrates that chronic disease patients with perceived financial barriers have worse outcomes and higher resource utilization, corroborating the findings from prior self-report studies. The overall exposure remained associated with the primary outcome even in spite of adjustment for income. This suggests that a patient's perception of a financial barrier might be used in clinical and research settings as an additional measure along with standard measures of socioeconomic status (ie. income, education, social status). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for relevant covariates, perceiving a financial barrier was associated with increased rates of hospitalization and mortality and higher hospital costs compared to those without financial barriers. The demonstrable association with adverse outcomes and increased costs seen in this study may provide an impetus for policymakers to seek to invest in interventions which minimize the impact of financial barriers.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".