Dataset Information

Neighborhood socioeconomic status and use of colonoscopy in an insured population--a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Low-socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Screening with colonoscopy, the most commonly used test in the US, has been shown to reduce the risk of death from CRC. This study examined if, among insured persons receiving care in integrated healthcare delivery systems, differences exist in colonoscopy use according to neighborhood SES.We assembled a retrospective cohort of 100,566 men and women, 50-74 years old, who had been enrolled in one of three US health plans for ≥1 year on January 1, 2000. Subjects were followed until the date of first colonoscopy, date of disenrollment from the health plan, or December 31, 2007, whichever occurred first. We obtained data on colonoscopy use from administrative records. We defined screening colonoscopy as an examination that was not preceded by gastrointestinal conditions in the prior 6-month period. Neighborhood SES was measured using the percentage of households in each subject's census-tract with an income below 1999 federal poverty levels based on 2000 US census data. Analyses, adjusted for demographics and comorbidity index, were performed using Weibull regression models.The average age of the cohort was 60 years and 52.7% were female. During 449,738 person-years of follow-up, fewer subjects in the lowest SES quartile (Q1) compared to the highest quartile (Q4) had any colonoscopy (26.7% vs. 37.1%) or a screening colonoscopy (7.6% vs. 13.3%). In regression analyses, compared to Q4, subjects in Q1 were 16% (adjusted HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.80-0.88) less likely to undergo any colonoscopy and 30%(adjusted HR = 0.70, CI: 0.65-0.75) less likely to undergo a screening colonoscopy.People in lower-SES neighborhoods are less likely to undergo a colonoscopy, even among insured subjects receiving care in integrated healthcare systems. Removing health insurance barriers alone is unlikely to eliminate disparities in colonoscopy use.

SUBMITTER: Doubeni CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3342210 | biostudies-other | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInequality in health outcomes in relation to Americans' socioeconomic position is rising.ObjectiveFirst, to evaluate the spatial relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)-related events; second, to evaluate the relative extent to which neighborhood disadvantage and physiologic risk account for neighborhood-level variation in ASCVD event rates.DesignObservational cohort analysis of geocoded longitudinal electronic health records.SettingA single academic health center and surrounding neighborhoods in northeastern Ohio.Patients109 793 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS) who had an outpatient lipid panel drawn between 2007 and 2010. The date of the first qualifying lipid panel served as the study baseline.MeasurementsTime from baseline to the first occurrence of a major ASCVD event (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) within 5 years, modeled as a function of a locally derived neighborhood disadvantage index (NDI) and the predicted 5-year ASCVD event rate from the Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Model (PCERM) of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. Outcome data were censored if no CCHS encounters occurred for 2 consecutive years or when state death data were no longer available (that is, from 2014 onward).ResultsThe PCERM systematically underpredicted ASCVD event risk among patients from disadvantaged communities. Model discrimination was poorer among these patients (concordance index [C], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.74]) than those from the most affluent communities (C, 0.80 [CI, 0.78 to 0.81]). The NDI alone accounted for 32.0% of census tract-level variation in ASCVD event rates, compared with 10.0% accounted for by the PCERM.LimitationsPatients from affluent communities were overrepresented. Outcomes of patients who received treatment for cardiovascular disease at Cleveland Clinic were assumed to be independent of whether the patients came from a disadvantaged or an affluent neighborhood.ConclusionNeighborhood disadvantage may be a powerful regulator of ASCVD event risk. In addition to supplemental risk models and clinical screening criteria, population-based solutions are needed to ameliorate the deleterious effects of neighborhood disadvantage on health outcomes.Primary funding sourceThe Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland and National Institutes of Health.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study developed and internally validated a predictive model for preterm birth (PTB) to examine the ability of neighbourhood socioeconomic status (SES) to predict PTB.DesignCohort study using individual-level data from two community-based prospective pregnancy cohort studies (All Our Families (AOF) and Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON)) and neighbourhood SES data from the 2011 Canadian census.SettingCalgary, Alberta, Canada.ParticipantsPregnant women who were <24 weeks of gestation and >15 years old were enrolled in the cohort studies between 2008 and 2012. Overall, 5297 women participated in at least one of these cohorts: 3341 women participated in the AOF study, 2187 women participated in the APrON study and 231 women participated in both studies. Women who participated in both studies were only counted once.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPTB (delivery prior to 37 weeks of gestation).ResultsThe rates of PTB in the least and most deprived neighbourhoods were 7.54% and 10.64%, respectively. Neighbourhood variation in PTB was 0.20, with an intra-class correlation of 5.72%. Neighbourhood SES, combined with individual-level predictors, predicted PTB with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75. The sensitivity was 91.80% at a low-risk threshold, with a high false-positive rate (71.50%), and the sensitivity was 5.70% at a highest risk threshold, with a low false-positive rate (0.90%). An agreement between the predicted and observed PTB demonstrated modest model calibration. Individual-level predictors alone predicted PTB with an AUC of 0.60.ConclusionAlthough neighbourhood SES combined with individual-level predictors improved the overall prediction of PTB compared with individual-level predictors alone, the detection rate was insufficient for application in clinical or public health practice. A prediction model with better predictive ability is required to effectively find women at high risk of preterm delivery.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe trends in the rate and daily dose of opioids used among commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries from 2007 to 2016.DesignRetrospective cohort study of administrative claims data.SettingNational database of medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the United States.Participants48 million individuals with any period of insurance coverage between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016, including commercial beneficiaries, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries aged 65 years and over, and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries under age 65 years (eligible owing to permanent disability).Main endpointsProportion of beneficiaries with any opioid prescription per quarter, average daily dose in milligram morphine equivalents (MME), and proportion of opioid use episodes that represented long term use.ResultsAcross all years of the study, annual opioid use prevalence was 14% for commercial beneficiaries, 26% for aged Medicare beneficiaries, and 52% for disabled Medicare beneficiaries. In the commercial beneficiary group, quarterly prevalence of opioid use changed little, starting and ending the study period at 6%; the average daily dose of 17 MME remained unchanged since 2011. For aged Medicare beneficiaries, quarterly use prevalence was also relatively stable, ranging from 11% at the beginning of the study period to 14% at the end. Disabled Medicare beneficiaries had the highest rates of opioid use, the highest rate of long term use, and the largest average daily doses. In this group, both quarterly use rates (39%) and average daily dose (56 MME) were higher at the end of 2016 than the low points observed in 2007 for each endpoint (26% prevalence and 53 MME).ConclusionsOpioid use rates were high during the study period of 2007-16, with the highest rates in disabled Medicare beneficiaries versus aged Medicare beneficiaries and commercial beneficiaries. Opioid use and average daily dose have not substantially declined from their peaks, despite increased attention to opioid abuse and awareness of their risks.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and barriers to peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis study was a mixed methods parallel design study using quantitative and qualitative data from a prospective clinical database of ESRD patients. The eligibility and choice cohorts were assembled from consecutive incident chronic dialysis patients entering one of five renal programs in the province of Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2010. Socioeconomic status was measured as median household income and percentage of residents with at least a high school education using Statistics Canada dissemination area-level data. Multivariable models described the relationship between socioeconomic status and likelihood of peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice. Barriers to peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice were classified into qualitative categories using the thematic constant comparative approach.ResultsThe peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice cohorts had 1314 and 857 patients, respectively; 65% of patients were deemed eligible for peritoneal dialysis, and 46% of eligible patients chose peritoneal dialysis. Socioeconomic status was not a significant predictor of peritoneal dialysis eligibility or choice in this study. Qualitative analyses identified 16 barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice. Patients in lower- versus higher-income Statistics Canada dissemination areas cited built environment or space barriers to peritoneal dialysis (4.6% versus 2.7%) and family or social support barriers (8.3% versus 3.5%) more frequently.ConclusionsPeritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice were not associated with socioeconomic status. However, socioeconomic status may influence specific barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice. Additional studies to determine the effect of targeting interventions to specific barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice in low socioeconomic status patients on peritoneal dialysis use are needed.

Project description:Introduction:Avoidable hospitalizations refer to acute care use for conditions that should normally be managed in primary care settings. Lower socioeconomic status that is often measured using area-based indicators (e.g. median household income) has been shown to increase risk of avoidable hospitalizations. However, both area- and individual-level socioeconomic status can contribute to hospitalization risk, but previous data limitations have prevented separate analyses. Further, the joint effect of individual and neighbourhood socioeconomic status has not been established in the Canadian population. To address this, this study links individual-level household income and neighbourhood-level material deprivation data within a population-based Canadian cohort. Objectives:To determine the individual and joint effect of individual-level household income and neighbourhood-level material deprivation on risk of hospitalization for a set of chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions using linked health survey, hospital discharge, and census-derived data. Methods:A pooled cohort was created by linking sociodemographic and health information from eight cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (2000/2001 - 2010) to hospital discharge records and Canadian Marginalization Indices (2001, 2006) (N = 354,595). The primary outcome variable was risk of index hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of angina, asthma, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, epilepsy, or hypertension. The primary exposure variable was joint individual-level national household income quintile and neighbourhood-level material deprivation quintile. Relative risk (RR) was estimated by constructing modified Poisson regression models with robust error variance. Results:In fully adjusted models with income and deprivation considered separately, individuals in the lowest household income quintile and highest material deprivation quintile were at increased risk of hospitalization (Income RR: 1.82 (95% CI 1.56-2.13) Deprivation RR: 1.67 (1.44-1.95)). When income and deprivation were jointly considered, those with low individual income living in high deprivation neighbourhoods were at greatest risk of hospitalization (RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.63 - 2.05)). Conclusion:Both individual income and neighbourhood deprivation separately and jointly increase risk of avoidable hospitalizations. Additional research is needed to understand their mechanisms of action. However, both levels should be considered when designing effective policies and interventions to reduce avoidable hospitalizations.

Dataset Information

Neighborhood socioeconomic status and use of colonoscopy in an insured population--a retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets