Utilization Rates of Pancreatectomy, Radical Prostatectomy, and Nephrectomy in New York, Ontario, and New South Wales, 2011 to 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Few studies have compared surgical utilization between countries or how rates may differ according to patients' socioeconomic status. Objective: To compare population-level utilization of 3 common nonemergent surgical procedures in New York State (US), Ontario (Canada), and New South Wales (Australia) and how utilization differs for residents of lower- and higher-income neighborhoods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included all adults aged 18 years and older who were hospitalized for pancreatectomy, radical prostatectomy, or nephrectomy between 2011 and 2016 in New York, between 2011 and 2018 in Ontario, and between 2013 and 2018 in New South Wales. Each patient's address of residence was linked to 2016 census data to ascertain neighborhood income. Data were analyzed from August 2019 to November 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were (1) each jurisdiction's per capita age- and sex-standardized utilization rates (procedures per 100 000 residents per year) for each surgery and (2) utilization rates among residents of lower- and higher-income neighborhoods. Results: This study included 115 428 surgical patients (25 780 [22.3%] women); 5717, 21 752, and 24 617 patients in New York were hospitalized for pancreatectomy, radical prostatectomy, and nephrectomy, respectively; 4929, 19 125, and 16 916 patients in Ontario, respectively; and 2069, 13 499, and 6804 patients in New South Wales, respectively. Patients in New South Wales were older for all procedures (eg, radical prostatectomy, mean [SD] age in New South Wales, 64.8 [7.3] years; in New York, 62.7 [8.4] years; in Ontario, 62.8 [6.7] years; P < .001); patients in New York were more likely than those in other locations to be women for pancreatectomy (New York: 2926 [51.2%]; Ontario: 2372 [48.1%]; New South Wales, 1003 [48.5%]; P = .004) and nephrectomy (New York: 10 645 [43.2%]; Ontario: 6529 [38.6%]; 2605 [38.3%]; P < .001). With the exception of nephrectomy in Ontario, there was a higher annual utilization rate for all procedures in all jurisdictions among patients residing in affluent neighborhoods (quintile 5) compared with poorer neighborhoods (quintile 1). This difference was largest in New South Wales for pancreatectomy (4.65 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 0.28]; P < .001) and radical prostatectomy (73.46 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 1.20]; P < .001); largest in New York for nephrectomy (8.43 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 0.85]; P < .001) and smallest in New York for radical prostatectomy (19.70 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 2.63]; P < .001); and smallest in Ontario for pancreatectomy (1.15 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 0.28]; P < .001) and nephrectomy (-1.10 additional procedures per 100 000 residents [SE, 0.52]; P < .001). New York had the highest utilization of nephrectomy (28.93 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.18]) and New South Wales for had the highest utilization of pancreatectomy and radical prostatectomy (6.94 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.15] and 94.37 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.81], respectively; all P < .001). Utilization was lowest in Ontario for all procedures (pancreatectomy, 6.18 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.09]; radical prostatectomy, 49.24 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.36]; nephrectomy, 21.40 procedures per 100 000 residents per year [SE, 0.16]; all P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, New York and New South Wales had higher per capita surgical utilization and larger neighborhood income-utilization gradients than Ontario. These findings suggest that income-based disparities are larger in the United States and Australia and smaller in Canada and highlight trade-offs inherent in the health care systems of different countries.
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
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".