Eye & contact lens · 2024
Impact of Patient Race/Ethnicity on Premium Intraocular Lens Utilization.
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.
Solli Elena M, Prescott Christina R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between social determinants of health and the likelihood of receiving a premium intraocular lens (IOL) at the time of cataract surgery.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review of a single-center, academic ophthalmology practice over a one-year period, with a primary outcome measure of placement of either a premium or standard IOL. We used logistic regression to calculate the odds of receiving a premium IOL, stratifying patients based on self-identified race/ethnicity, age, sex, insurance type (private insurance vs. Medicare or Medicaid), estimated household income (based on median household income for zip code), and presence of ocular pathology.
RESULTS: Compared with self-identified White patients, Black patients were least likely to receive premium IOLs (OR=0.220, 95% CI 0.137-0.340, P <0.001), followed by Hispanic patients (OR=0.308, 95% CI 0.104-0.730) and Asian patients (OR=0.479, 95% CI 0.302-0.734). Patients with Medicare or Medicaid insurance were also less likely to receive premium IOLs (OR 0.522, 95% CI 0.336-0.784).
CONCLUSIONS: White patients in our practice were more likely to receive premium IOLs than non-White patients, even when controlling for age, sex, insurance type, estimated median household income, and presence of ocular comorbidities. The underlying reason for this disparity should be explored further.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review of a single-center, academic ophthalmology practice over a one-year period, with a primary outcome measure of placement of either a premium or standard IOL. We used logistic regression to calculate the odds of receiving a premium IOL, stratifying patients based on self-identified race/ethnicity, age, sex, insurance type (private insurance vs. Medicare or Medicaid), estimated household income (based on median household income for zip code), and presence of ocular pathology.
RESULTS: Compared with self-identified White patients, Black patients were least likely to receive premium IOLs (OR=0.220, 95% CI 0.137-0.340, P <0.001), followed by Hispanic patients (OR=0.308, 95% CI 0.104-0.730) and Asian patients (OR=0.479, 95% CI 0.302-0.734). Patients with Medicare or Medicaid insurance were also less likely to receive premium IOLs (OR 0.522, 95% CI 0.336-0.784).
CONCLUSIONS: White patients in our practice were more likely to receive premium IOLs than non-White patients, even when controlling for age, sex, insurance type, estimated median household income, and presence of ocular comorbidities. The underlying reason for this disparity should be explored further.