Differences in ambulatory care fragmentation between cancer survivors and noncancer controls.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Patients with chronic conditions are treated by many providers, which can increase the risk of communication gaps across providers and potential harm to patients. However, to the authors' knowledge, the extent of fragmented care among this population is unknown. In the current study, the authors sought to determine whether cancer survivors have more fragmented care than noncancer controls and to quantify the extent of fragmentation.Methods
Data from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study linked to Medicare claims were used. The authors included beneficiaries with continuous Part A and B coverage for 12 months at the time of their baseline REGARDS survey. The primary outcome of the current study was claims-based fragmentation over 12 months, which was calculated using the reversed Bice-Boxerman Index so a higher score reflected greater fragmentation. Unadjusted differences in fragmentation were compared between cancer survivors and controls. Beta regression models were used to estimate associations between cancer status and fragmentation, adjusting for potential confounders.Results
The authors included 4922 participants aged ≥65 years at baseline. Of these patients, approximately 21% were cancer survivors. Survivors had a median of 11 visits (interquartile range, 7-15 visits) with 5 providers compared with controls, who had a median of 9 visits (interquartile range, 6-14 visits) with 4 providers (P < .0001). Cancer survivors had significantly more fragmented care compared with controls (median reversed Bice-Boxerman Index, 0.80 vs 0.76; P < .0001). After adjusting for confounders, cancer survivors had an increased odds of having fragmented care (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14).Conclusions
Care fragmentation is more prevalent among cancer survivors compared with those without a history of cancer. Future studies should examine whether fragmentation puts survivors at risk of worse outcomes.
SUBMITTER: Pinheiro LC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7275891 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeBuilding on previous research documenting differences in preventive care quality between cancer survivors and noncancer controls, this study examines comorbid condition care.MethodsUsing data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) -Medicare database, we examined comorbid condition quality of care in patients with locoregional breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer diagnosed in 2004 who were age ? 66 years at diagnosis, who had survived ? 3 years, and who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare. Controls were frequency matched to cases on age, sex, race, and region. Quality of care was assessed from day 366 through day 1,095 postdiagnosis using published indicators of chronic (n = 10) and acute (n = 19) condition care. The proportion of eligible cancer survivors and controls who received recommended care was compared by using Fisher's exact tests. The chronic and acute indicators, respectively, were then combined into single logistic regression models for each cancer type to compare survivors' care receipt to that of controls, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic variables and controlling for within-patient variation.ResultsThe sample matched 8,661 cancer survivors to 17,322 controls (mean age, 75 years; 65% male; 85% white). Colorectal cancer survivors were less likely than controls to receive appropriate care on both the chronic (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95) and acute (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85) indicators. Prostate cancer survivors were more likely to receive appropriate chronic care (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.38) but less likely to receive quality acute care (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.87). Breast cancer survivors received care equivalent to controls on both the chronic (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.17) and acute (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.13) indicators.ConclusionBecause we found differences by cancer type, research exploring factors associated with these differences in care quality is needed.
| S-EPMC3595422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMore fragmented ambulatory care (i.e., care spread across many providers without a dominant provider) has been associated with more subsequent healthcare utilization (such as more tests, procedures, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations) than less fragmented ambulatory care. It is not known if race and socioeconomic status are associated with fragmented ambulatory care.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal analysis of data from the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, using the REGARDS baseline visit plus the first year of follow-up. We included participants ≥65 years old, who had linked fee-for-service Medicare claims, and ≥ 4 ambulatory visits in the first year of follow-up. We used Tobit regression to determine the associations between race, annual household income, and educational attainment at baseline and fragmentation score in the subsequent year (as measured with the reversed Bice-Boxerman Index). Covariates included other demographic characteristics, medical conditions, medication use, health behaviors, and psychosocial variables. Additional analyses categorized visits by the type of provider (primary care vs. specialist).ResultsThe study participants (N = 6799) had an average age of 73.0 years, 53% were female, and 30% were black. Nearly half had low annual household income (<$35,000) and 41% had a high school education or less. Overall, participants had a median of 10 ambulatory visits to 4 providers in the 12 months following their baseline study visit. Participants in the highest quintile of fragmentation scores had a median of 11 visits to 7 providers. Black race was associated with an absolute adjusted 3% lower fragmentation score compared to white race (95% confidence interval (2% lower to 4% lower; p < 0.001). This difference was explained by blacks seeing fewer specialists than whites. Income and education were not independent predictors of fragmentation scores.ConclusionsAmong Medicare beneficiaries, blacks had less fragmented ambulatory care than whites, due to lower utilization of specialty care. Future research is needed to determine the effect of fragmented care on health outcomes for blacks and whites.
| S-EPMC7890852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background More fragmented ambulatory care (ie, care spread across many providers without a dominant provider) has been associated with excess emergency department and inpatient care. We sought to determine whether more fragmented ambulatory care is associated with an increase in the hazard of incident stroke, overall and stratified by health status and by race. Methods and Results We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study (2003-2016), including participants aged ≥65 years who had linked Medicare fee-for-service claims and no history of stroke (N=12 510). We measured fragmentation of care with the reversed Bice-Boxerman index. We used Poisson models to determine the association between fragmentation and adjudicated incident stroke. The average age of participants was 70.5 years; 53% were women, 32% were Black participants, and 16% were participants with fair or poor health. Overall, the adjusted rate of incident stroke was similar for high versus low fragmentation (8.2 versus 8.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively; P=0.89). Among participants with fair or poor self-rated health, having high versus low fragmentation was associated with a trend toward a higher adjusted rate of incident strokes (14.8 versus 10.4 per 1000 person-years, respectively; P=0.067). Among Black participants with fair or poor self-rated health, having high versus low fragmentation was associated with a higher adjusted rate of strokes (19.3 versus 10.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively; P=0.02). Conclusions Highly fragmented ambulatory care is independently associated with incident stroke among Black individuals with fair or poor health.
| S-EPMC8200753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had wide-ranging health effects and increased isolation. Older with cancer patients might be especially vulnerable to loneliness and poor mental health during the pandemic.MethodsThe authors included active participants enrolled in the longitudinal Thinking and Living With Cancer study of nonmetastatic breast cancer survivors aged 60 to 89 years (n = 262) and matched controls (n = 165) from 5 US regions. Participants completed questionnaires at parent study enrollment and then annually, including a web-based or telephone COVID-19 survey, between May 27 and September 11, 2020. Mixed-effects models were used to examine changes in loneliness (a single item on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression [CES-D] scale) from before to during the pandemic in survivors versus controls and to test survivor-control differences in the associations between changes in loneliness and changes in mental health, including depression (CES-D, excluding the loneliness item), anxiety (the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and perceived stress (the Perceived Stress Scale). Models were adjusted for age, race, county COVID-19 death rates, and time between assessments.ResultsLoneliness increased from before to during the pandemic (0.211; P = .001), with no survivor-control differences. Increased loneliness was associated with worsening depression (3.958; P < .001) and anxiety (3.242; P < .001) symptoms and higher stress (1.172; P < .001) during the pandemic, also with no survivor-control differences.ConclusionsCancer survivors reported changes in loneliness and mental health similar to those reported by women without cancer. However, both groups reported increased loneliness from before to during the pandemic that was related to worsening mental health, suggesting that screening for loneliness during medical care interactions will be important for identifying all older women at risk for adverse mental health effects of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8419003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe growing number of cancer survivors combined with a looming shortage of oncology specialists will require greater coordination of post-treatment care responsibilities between oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs). However, data are limited regarding these physicians' views of cancer survivors' care.ObjectiveTo compare PCPs and oncologists with regard to their knowledge, attitudes, and practices for follow-up care of breast and colon cancer survivors.Design and subjectsMailed questionnaires were completed by a nationally representative sample of 1,072 PCPs and 1,130 medical oncologists in 2009 (cooperation rate?=?65%). Sampling and non-response weights were used to calculate estimates to reflect practicing US PCPs and oncologists.Main measuresPCPs and oncologists reported their 1) preferred model for delivering cancer survivors' care; 2) assessment of PCPs' ability to perform follow-up care tasks; 3) confidence in their knowledge; and 4) cancer surveillance practices.Key resultsCompared with PCPs, oncologists were less likely to believe PCPs had the skills to conduct appropriate testing for breast cancer recurrence (59% vs. 23%, P?<?0.001) or to care for late effects of breast cancer (75% vs. 38%, P?<?0.001). Only 40% of PCPs were very confident of their own knowledge of testing for recurrence. PCPs were more likely than oncologists to endorse routine use of non-recommended blood and imaging tests for detecting cancer recurrence, with both groups departing substantially from guideline recommendations.ConclusionThere are significant differences in PCPs' and oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to care of cancer survivors. Improving cancer survivors' care may require more effective communication between these two groups to increase PCPs' confidence in their knowledge, and must also address oncologists' attitudes regarding PCPs' ability to care for cancer survivors.
| S-EPMC3235622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patterns of poor nutritional intake may exacerbate the elevated morbidity experienced by cancer survivors. It remains unclear whether cancer survivors adhere to existing dietary guidelines and whether survivors' diets differ from those of individuals without cancer over the long term.The authors evaluated dietary intake and quality in 1533 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2010 compared with dietary intake and quality in 3075 individuals who had no history of cancer and were matched to the cancer survivors by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Dietary intake was assessed using 24-hour dietary recalls. The 2010 Healthy Eating Index (HEI-2010) was used to evaluate diet quality.The mean?±?standard deviation HEI-2010 total score was 47.2?±?0.5 in the cancer survivors and 48.3?±?0.4 in the noncancer group (P?=?.03). Compared with the noncancer group, cancer survivors had a significantly lower score for empty calories (13.6 vs 14.4; P?=?.001), which corresponded to worse adherence to dietary intake of calories from solid fats, alcohol, and added sugars. Cancer survivors also had significantly lower dietary intake of fiber than the noncancer group (15.0 vs 15.9 g per day; P?=?.02). In relation to recommended intake, survivors' mean dietary intake of vitamin D, vitamin E, potassium, fiber, and calcium was 31%, 47%, 55%, 60%, and 73%, respectively; whereas their mean dietary intake of saturated fat and sodium was 112% and 133%, respectively, of the recommended intake.Cancer survivors had poor adherence to the US Department of Agriculture 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and their intake patterns were worse than those in the general population for empty calories and fiber.
| S-EPMC4667562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer patients are considered as highly vulnerable individuals in the current COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the clinical characteristics of survivor and non-survivor COVID-19-infected cancer patients in Pakistan.Patients and methodsWe did a retrospective study of 70 cancer patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection from Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore and Peshawar, Pakistan between April 13 and July 09, 2020. These patients were discharged from the hospital or had died by July 09, 2020. Clinical, pathological and radiological characteristics were compared between survivors and non-survivors by fisher's exact test and chi-square test. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were performed to explore the risk factors of mortality.ResultsSeventy cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled and the majority were males 38 (54.3%). 57 (81.4%) had solid tumors and 13 (18.6%) had hematological malignancies. Dyspnea (44 cases) was the most common symptom (62.9%). Complications were reported in 51 (72.9%) patients during the course of disease. 19 (27.1%) patients were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). A significant increase in the C-reactive protein level and neutrophil count was observed in the deceased patients as compared to the surviving patients. D-dimer values of ≥0.2 mg/L were significantly associated with mortality (P=0.01). We identified two independent risk factors associated with death, ICU admission (P=0.007) and D-dimer (P=0.003).ConclusionPakistani cancer patients with COVID-19 infection reported poor prognosis. Intensive surveillance of clinicopathological characteristics of cancer patients infected with COVID-19 especially D-dimer values may play a pivotal role in the outcome of the disease.
| S-EPMC8173078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study assessed 12-month chronic pain (CP)-related health care utilization and costs among chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) patients who initiated various long-term opioid treatments. Treatments included monotherapy with long-acting opioids (mono-LAOs), mono-therapy with short-acting opioids (mono-SAOs), both LAOs and SAOs (combination), and opioid therapy initiated with SAO or LAO and switched to the other class (switch). Using MarketScan® claims databases (2006-2012), we identified CNCP patients with ≥90 days opioid supply after pain diagnosis and continuous enrollment 12 months before pain diagnosis (baseline period) and 12 months after opioid start (post-index period). Outcomes included CP-related health care utilization and costs. Among CNCP patients (n=21,203), the cohort distribution was 74% mono-SAOs, 22% combination, 2% mono-LAOs, and 2% switch. During follow-up, the average daily morphine equivalent dose was highest in mono-LAO patients (96.4 mg) compared with combination patients (89.8 mg), switch patients (64.3 mg), and mono-SAO patients (36.2 mg). After adjusting for baseline differences, the mono-LAO cohort had lower total CP-related costs ($4,933) compared with the mono-SAO ($8,604), switch ($10,470), and combination ($15,190) cohorts (all: P<0.05). Mono-LAO patients had greater CP-related prescription costs but lower medical costs than the other cohorts during the follow-up period, including lower CP-related hospitalizations (1% vs 11%-20%), emergency department visits (4% vs 11%-18%), and diagnostic radiology use (21% vs 54%-61%) (all: P<0.001). Use of pain-related medications and other treatment modalities was also significantly lower in the mono-LAO cohort relative to the other cohorts. CNCP patients using long-term monotherapy with LAOs had the lowest CP-related total health care costs in the 12 months after opioid initiation compared with mono-SAO, switch, or combination patients despite higher opioid daily doses and higher prescription costs. Future research accounting for severity and duration of pain would aid in determining the optimal long-term opioid regimen for CNCP patients.
| S-EPMC5533567 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportancePalliative care improves health outcomes, but studies of the differences in the delivery of palliative care to patients with different types of serious illness are lacking.ObjectiveTo examine the delivery of palliative care among adults in their last year of life who died of terminal noncancer illness compared with those who died of cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study used linked health administrative data of adults who received palliative care in their last year of life and died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, in Ontario, Canada.ExposuresCause of death (chronic organ failure, dementia, or cancer).Main outcomes and measuresComponents of palliative care delivery, including timing and location of initiation, model of care, physician mix, care settings, and location of death.ResultsA total of 145 709 adults received palliative care (median age, 78 years; interquartile range, 67-86 years; 50.7% female); 21 054 died of chronic organ failure (4704 of heart failure, 5715 of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 3785 of end-stage kidney disease, 579 of cirrhosis, and 6271 of stroke), 14 033 died of dementia, and 110 622 died of cancer. Palliative care was initiated earlier (>90 days before death) in patients with cancer (32 010 [28.9%]) than in those with organ failure (3349 [15.9%]; absolute difference, 13.0%) or dementia (2148 [15.3%]; absolute difference, 13.6%). A lower proportion of patients with cancer had palliative care initiated in the home (16 088 [14.5%]) compared with patients with chronic organ failure (6904 [32.8%]; absolute difference, -18.3%) or dementia (3922 [27.9%]; absolute difference, -13.4%). Patients with cancer received palliative care across multiple care settings (92 107 [83.3%]) more often than patients with chronic organ failure (12 061 [57.3%]; absolute difference, 26.0%) or dementia (7553 [53.8%]; absolute difference, 29.5%). Palliative care was more often delivered to patients with cancer (80 615 [72.9%]) using a consultative or specialist instead of a generalist model compared with patients with chronic organ failure (9114 [43.3%]; absolute difference, 29.6%) or dementia (5634 [40.1%]; absolute difference, 32.8%). Patients with cancer (42 718 [38.6%]) received shared palliative care more often from general practitioners and physicians with subspecialty training, compared with patients with chronic organ failure (3599 [17.1%]; absolute difference, 21.5%) or dementia (1989 [14.2%]; absolute difference, 24.4%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, there were substantial patient- and practitioner-level differences in the delivery of palliative care across distinct types of serious illness. These patient- and practitioner-level differences have important implications for the organization and scaled implementation of palliative care programs, including enhancement of practitioner education and training and improvements in equitable access to care across all settings.
| S-EPMC7933993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To determine relationship between cancer survivors' perception of care coordination and their health outcomes. METHODS:Study subjects were 1306 Korean adulthood cancer survivors who were enrolled in two academic hospital and completed a questionnaire consisting of questions asking two aspects of care coordination for cancer treatment they had received: 1) who played a main coordinator role and 2) whether care services had met their necessitated health concerns. We measured health outcomes including new comorbidity, number of clinic visits, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). Associations between the level of care coordination and health outcomes were evaluated by multiple logistic regression analysis after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS:Survivors with uncoordinated care were more likely to have more new comorbidities after cancer diagnosis, visit clinic more frequently and have worse HRQoL and higher FCR. Females and unmarried survivors were more likely to have received uncoordinated care than males and ever married survivors. Uncoordinated care group had an increased the risk of new comorbidity (odds ratio 1.73, [95% confidence interval] 1.02-2.92), multiple clinic visits (1.69, 1.00-2.88), severe FCR (2.28, 1.33-3.93), low EuroQoL Visual Analogue Scale (1.82, 1.28-2.60), low global health status (1.51, 1.04-2.21), and poor physical (2.00, 1.31-3.04), role (2.46, 1.69-3.56) and emotional function (2.62, 1.81-3.78). CONCLUSIONS:Coordinated care of Korean cancer survivors was associated with their health outcomes, including new comorbidity, clinic visits, HRQoL and FCR. Good care coordination may be reinforced to improve outcomes of survivorship care.
| S-EPMC7001372 | biostudies-literature