4.6 Article

Urologic diseases in America project: Trends in resource use for urinary tract infections in men

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 173, Issue 4, Pages 1288-1294

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000155595.98120.8e

Keywords

urinary tract; urinary tract infections; economics; medical; health services; epidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Various types of urinary tract infection (UTI) occur in men. In this study we examined health care use trends, including epidemiological and economic factors, for UTI in men in the United States. Materials and Methods: The analytical methods used to generate these results have been described previously. Results: Approximately 20% of all UTIs occur in men. Between 1988 and 1994 the overall lifetime prevalence of UTI was estimated to be 13,689/100,000 men. Orchitis rates, particularly in older men, are generally higher than those of cystitis or pyelonephritis. Approximately 10% of all inpatient care of men with UTI is for orchitis (12 to 14/100,000 population). Rates of outpatient hospital and physician office care for male UTI have increased in the last decade. Rates for emergency room care for UTI in elderly men (85 to 94 years old) were almost twice those in men younger than 85 years. The adjusted mean health care expenditure for privately insured men with UTI was $5,544 in 1999 compared to $2,715 for men without UTI. Total annual health care expenditures for men and women with UTI were $5,544 and $5,407, respectively. Mean time lost from work was slightly higher for men. Based on composite data overall medical expenditures for men with UTI in the United States were estimated to be approximately $1.028 billion in 2000. Conclusions: Health care use and economic data on UTIs in men revealed a number of intriguing trends. These results raise various important questions for future research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available