Cornea · 2024
Social Risk Factors Associated With Microbial Keratitis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Madeleine C, Vogt Emily L, Hicks Patrice M, Pawar Mercy, Lu Ming-Chen, Niziol Leslie M, Terek Danielle A, Nallasamy Nambi, Hakim Farida E, Woodward Maria A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify social risk factors (SRFs) that affect microbial keratitis (MK) care using the Penchansky-Thomas (P-T) health care access framework.
METHODS: This combined retrospective and prospective cohort study recruited participants with newly diagnosed MK at an academic medical center. Participant demographic information and SRFs were collected using in-person interviews and chart review. SRFs were categorized into P-T framework domains. Primary analysis included proportion of participants reporting SRFs, distribution of reported SRFs, and demographic differences associated with SRFs using descriptive statistics, chi-square, and two-sample t tests. A subgroup analysis for participants who were lost to follow-up (LTFU) was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 100 participants with MK were included in this study. Of the 100 participants, 60.0% reported at least 1 SRF affecting care, 42.0% reported ≥2 SRFs, and 12.0% reported ≥4 SRFs; 40.0% had no SRFs. More SRFs were reported for participants with lower income versus those with higher income ($25,000-$50,000 vs. $51,000-$100,000, P = 0.0363); there were no other demographic differences between groups. The most reported SRF was distance to appointment (45.0%). Accessibility was the most reported P-T domain (49.0%). Participants with LTFU, compared with those not LTFU, had more SRFs (100% vs. 52.4%, P = 0.0001) and reported a greater median number of SRFs (3.0 vs. 1.0, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: SRFs affected most patients with MK, most notably accessibility and affordability. Participants with lower income had more SRFs. SRFs are linked to patients being lost to follow-up care.
METHODS: This combined retrospective and prospective cohort study recruited participants with newly diagnosed MK at an academic medical center. Participant demographic information and SRFs were collected using in-person interviews and chart review. SRFs were categorized into P-T framework domains. Primary analysis included proportion of participants reporting SRFs, distribution of reported SRFs, and demographic differences associated with SRFs using descriptive statistics, chi-square, and two-sample t tests. A subgroup analysis for participants who were lost to follow-up (LTFU) was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 100 participants with MK were included in this study. Of the 100 participants, 60.0% reported at least 1 SRF affecting care, 42.0% reported ≥2 SRFs, and 12.0% reported ≥4 SRFs; 40.0% had no SRFs. More SRFs were reported for participants with lower income versus those with higher income ($25,000-$50,000 vs. $51,000-$100,000, P = 0.0363); there were no other demographic differences between groups. The most reported SRF was distance to appointment (45.0%). Accessibility was the most reported P-T domain (49.0%). Participants with LTFU, compared with those not LTFU, had more SRFs (100% vs. 52.4%, P = 0.0001) and reported a greater median number of SRFs (3.0 vs. 1.0, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: SRFs affected most patients with MK, most notably accessibility and affordability. Participants with lower income had more SRFs. SRFs are linked to patients being lost to follow-up care.