Dataset Information

Comparison of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Outcomes Among Practicing Physicians vs the General Population in Ontario, Canada.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Although cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in most developed countries, little is known about current physicians' cardiovascular health and outcomes. Objective:To compare cardiac risk factor burden, health services use, and major cardiovascular event incidence between physicians and the general population. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used data from practicing physicians and nonphysicians without cardiovascular disease aged 40 to 75 years in Ontario, Canada. Cohorts were assembled beginning January 1, 2008, and were followed up to December 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed between November 2017 and September 2019. Exposure:Being a practicing physician. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was 8-year incidence of a major cardiovascular event (ie, cardiovascular death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or coronary revascularization). Secondary outcomes included health services used, such as physician assessments and guideline-recommended tests. Results:The cohort comprised 17?071 physicians (mean [SD] age, 53.3 [8.8] years; 11?963 [70.1%] men) and 5?306?038 nonphysicians (mean [SD] age, 53.7 [9.5] years; 2?556?044 [48.2%] men). Physicians had significantly lower baseline rates of hypertension (16.9% vs 29.6%), diabetes (5.0% vs 11.3%), and smoking (13.1% vs 21.6%), while having better cholesterol profiles (total cholesterol levels >240 mg/dL, 13.3% vs 16.5%; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >130 mg/dL, 33.2% vs 36.8%); age- and sex-adjusted differences were even larger. Physicians also had lower rates of periodic health examinations (58.9% [95% CI, 57.5%-60.4%] vs 67.9% [95% CI, 67.8%-67.9%]), hyperlipidemia screening (76.3% [95% CI, 74.7%-78.0%] vs 83.8% [95% CI, 83.7%-83.9%]), and diabetes screening (79.0% [95% CI, 77.3%-80.8%] vs 85.3% [95% CI, 85.2%-85.4%]), but higher rates of cardiologist consultations (25.2% [95% CI, 24.2%-26.3%] vs 19.5% [95% CI, 19.4%-19.5%]). The 8-year age- and sex-standardized primary outcome incidence was 4.4 major cardiovascular events per 1000 person-years for physicians and 7.1 major cardiovascular events per 1000 person-years for the general population. After adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and cardiac risks and comorbidities, physicians had a 22% lower hazard (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85) of experiencing the primary outcome compared with the general population. Conclusions and Relevance:Practicing physicians in Ontario had fewer cardiovascular risk factors, underwent less preventive testing, and were less likely to experience major adverse cardiovascular outcomes than the general population.

SUBMITTER: Ko DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6902820 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Outcomes Among Practicing Physicians vs the General Population in Ontario, Canada.

Ko Dennis T DT Chu Anna A Austin Peter C PC Johnston Sharon S Nallamothu Brahmajee K BK Roifman Idan I Tusevljak Natasa N Udell Jacob A JA Frank Erica E

JAMA network open 20191101 11

<h4>Importance</h4>Although cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in most developed countries, little is known about current physicians' cardiovascular health and outcomes.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare cardiac risk factor burden, health services use, and major cardiovascular event incidence between physicians and the general population.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This cohort study used data from practicing physicians and nonphysicians without cardiovascular disease ag ...[more]

PMID: 31755946

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn response to an increase in COVID-19 infection rates in Ontario, several systemic treatment (ST) regimens delivered in the adjuvant setting for breast cancer were temporarily permitted for neoadjuvant-intent to defer nonurgent breast cancer surgical procedures.ObjectiveTo examine the use and compare short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant-intent vs adjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. Patients with cancer starting selected ST regimens in the COVID-19 era (March 11, 2020, to September 30, 2020) were compared to those in the pre-COVID-19 era (March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020). Patients were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months of starting systemic therapy.Main outcomes and measuresEstimates were calculated for the use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant ST, the likelihood of receiving a surgical procedure, the rate of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, COVID-19 infections, and all-cause mortality between treatment groups over time.ResultsAmong a total of 10 920 patients included, 7990 (73.2%) started treatment in the pre-COVID-19 era and 7344 (67.3%) received adjuvant ST; the mean (SD) age was 61.6 (13.1) years. Neoadjuvant-intent ST was more common in the COVID-19 era (1404 of 2930 patients [47.9%]) than the pre-COVID-19 era (2172 of 7990 patients [27.2%]), with an odds ratio of 2.46 (95% CI, 2.26-2.69; P < .001). This trend was consistent across a range of ST regimens, but differed according to patient age and geography. The likelihood of receiving surgery following neoadjuvant-intent chemotherapy was similar in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (log-rank P = .06). However, patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant-intent hormonal therapy were significantly more likely to receive surgery in the COVID-19 era (log-rank P < .001). After adjustment, there were no significant changes in the rate of emergency department visits over time between patients receiving neoadjuvant ST, adjuvant ST, or ST only during the ST treatment period or postoperative period. Hospital admissions decreased in the COVID-19 era for patients who received neoadjuvant ST compared with adjuvant ST or ST alone (P for interaction = .01 for both) in either setting.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, patients were more likely to start neoadjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era, which varied across the province and by indication. There was limited evidence to suggest any substantial impact on short-term outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceMaintaining a healthy physician workforce includes the routine use of primary care physician (PCP) services; however, physicians may face barriers to attaining formal care.ObjectiveTo analyze access to and frequency of visits to PCPs among physicians compared with nonphysicians.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based, retrospective cohort study used registration data from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Canada, from January 1, 1990, to March 31, 2018. Data for all newly practicing physicians as of March 31, 2018, were linked to Ontario health administrative databases. Data were analyzed from August 25, 2020, to August 6, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were enrollment in a PCP practice and visits with a PCP. Generalized estimating equations compared primary care visits between physicians and nonphysicians, matched 1:5 based on age, sex, neighborhood income quintile, and health region.ResultsAmong 19 581 physicians (mean [SD] age, 43.99 [8.94] years; 53.27% male) matched to 97 905 nonphysicians, physicians were less likely to be enrolled with a PCP than were nonphysicians (81.8% vs 86.4%; absolute difference, 4.6%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.79) and had fewer primary care visits during the preceding 2 years (median [IQR], 2 [0-4] vs 4 [1-7]; adjusted relative rate ratio [RRR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.58-0.60). Physicians aged 40 years or older and male physicians were less likely to be rostered (ages 40-44 years: OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.64-0.77]; male: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.57-0.63]) and more likely to have a lower frequency of PCP visits (ages 40-44 years: RRR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.51-0.56]; male: RRR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.50-0.51]) compared with nonphysicians.Conclusions and relevanceIn this retrospective cohort study, enrollment with a PCP practice and frequency of visits were lower among physicians compared with a matched general population of nonphysicians. Individual, system, and medical cultural factors associated with these results need to be better understood so that physicians can take better care of themselves and their patients.

Project description:ImportanceHospitalized medical patients cared for by female physicians may have decreased mortality rates compared with patients of male physicians. However, this association has yet to be assessed outside of the US, and little is known about factors that may explain this difference.ObjectiveTo determine whether mortality, other hospital outcomes, and processes of care differed between the patients cared for by female and male physicians.Design setting and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study included patients admitted to general medical wards at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2010, and October 31, 2017. The association of physician gender with patient outcomes was examined while adjusting for hospital fixed effects, patient characteristics, physician characteristics, and processes of care. All patients were admitted to a general internal medicine service through the emergency department and were cared for by a general internist or family physician-hospitalist. Patients were excluded if length of stay was greater than 30 days or if the attending physician cared for less than 100 hospitalized general medicine patients over the study period. Statistical analyses were performed from October 15, 2020, to May 8, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital mortality, length of stay, intensive care unit admission, 30-day readmissions, and process-of-care measures (blood tests, medications, imaging, endoscopy, and interventional radiology services).ResultsA total of 171 625 hospitalized patients with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range, 56-84 years) were included (84 221 men [49.1%], 87 402 women [50.9%], and 2 patients with unspecified sex). Patients were cared for by 172 attending physicians (54 female physicians [31.4%] and 118 male physicians [68.6%]). In fully adjusted models, female physicians ordered more imaging tests, including computed tomography (adjusted difference, -1.70%; 95% CI, -2.78% to -0.61%; P = .002), magnetic resonance imaging (-0.88%; 95% CI, -1.37% to -0.38%; P = .001), and ultrasonography (-1.90%; 95% CI, -3.21% to -0.59%; P = .005). Patients treated by female physicians had lower in-hospital mortality (2256 of 46 772 patients [4.8%] vs 6452 of 124 853 patients [5.2%]). This difference persisted after adjustment for patient characteristics but was no longer statistically different after adjustment for other physician characteristics (adjusted difference, 0.29%; 95% CI, -0.08% to 0.65%; P = .12). The difference was similar after further adjustment for processes of care.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of patients admitted to general medical units in Canada, patients cared for by female physicians had lower mortality rates than those treated by male physicians, adjusting for patient characteristics. This finding was nonsignificant after adjustment for other physician characteristics.

Project description:ImportanceChlorthalidone is currently recommended as the preferred thiazide diuretic to treat hypertension, but no trials have directly compared risks and benefits.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide as first-line therapies for hypertension in real-world practice.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a Large-Scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation in a Network of Databases (LEGEND) observational comparative cohort study with large-scale propensity score stratification and negative-control and synthetic positive-control calibration on databases spanning January 2001 through December 2018. Outpatient and inpatient care episodes of first-time users of antihypertensive monotherapy in the United States based on 2 administrative claims databases and 1 collection of electronic health records were analyzed. Analysis began June 2018.ExposuresChlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, and a composite cardiovascular disease outcome including the first 3 outcomes and sudden cardiac death. Fifty-one safety outcomes were measured.ResultsOf 730 225 individuals (mean [SD] age, 51.5 [13.3] years; 450 100 women [61.6%]), 36 918 were dispensed or prescribed chlorthalidone and had 149 composite outcome events, and 693 337 were dispensed or prescribed hydrochlorothiazide and had 3089 composite outcome events. No significant difference was found in the associated risk of myocardial infarction, hospitalized heart failure, or stroke, with a calibrated hazard ratio for the composite cardiovascular outcome of 1.00 for chlorthalidone compared with hydrochlorothiazide (95% CI, 0.85-1.17). Chlorthalidone was associated with a significantly higher risk of hypokalemia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; 95% CI, 2.38-3.12), hyponatremia (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47), acute renal failure (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.63), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30). Chlorthalidone was associated with a significantly lower risk of diagnosed abnormal weight gain (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that chlorthalidone use was not associated with significant cardiovascular benefits when compared with hydrochlorothiazide, while its use was associated with greater risk of renal and electrolyte abnormalities. These findings do not support current recommendations to prefer chlorthalidone vs hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension treatment in first-time users was found. We used advanced methods, sensitivity analyses, and diagnostics, but given the possibility of residual confounding and the limited length of observation periods, further study is warranted.

Project description:ObjectivesMedical Regulatory Authorities (MRAs) provide licences to physicians and monitor those physicians once in practice to support their continued competence. In response to physician shortages, many Canadian MRAs developed alternative licensure routes to allow physicians who do not meet traditional licensure criteria to obtain licences to practice. Many physicians have gained licensure through alternative routes, but the performance of these physicians in practice has not been previously examined. This study compared the performance of traditionally and alternatively licenced physicians in Ontario using quality indicators of primary care. The purpose of this study was to examine the practice performance of alternatively licenced physicians and provide evaluative evidence for alternative licensure policies.DesignA cross-sectional retrospective examination of Ontario health administrative data was conducted using Poisson regression analyses to compare the performance of traditionally and alternatively licenced physicians.SettingPrimary care in Ontario, Canada.ParticipantsAll family physicians who were licenced in Ontario between 2000 and 2012 and who had complete medical billing data in 2014 were included (n=11 419).Outcome measuresPrimary care quality indicators were calculated for chronic disease management, preventive paediatric care, cancer screening and hospital readmission rates using Ontario health administrative data.ResultsAlternatively licenced physicians performed similarly to traditionally licenced physicians in many primary care performance measures. Minimal differences were seen across groups in indicators of diabetic care, congestive heart failure care, asthma care and cancer screening rates. Larger differences were found in preventive care for children less than 2 years of age, particularly for alternatively licenced physicians who entered Ontario from another Canadian province.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that alternatively licenced physicians perform similarly to traditionally licenced physicians across many indicators of primary care. Our study also demonstrates the utility of administrative data for examining physician performance and evaluating medical regulatory policies and programmes.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Outcomes Among Practicing Physicians vs the General Population in Ontario, Canada.

Publications

Comparison of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Outcomes Among Practicing Physicians vs the General Population in Ontario, Canada.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets