4.7 Article

Neighborhood Poverty and Pediatric Intensive Care Use

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 144, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2019-0748

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1K23AI112916]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Disparities in health service use have been described across a range of sociodemographic factors. Patterns of PICU use have not been thoroughly assessed. METHODS: This was a population-level, retrospective analysis of admissions to the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center PICU between 2011 and 2016. Residential addresses of patients were geocoded and spatially joined to census tracts. Pediatric patients were eligible for inclusion if they resided within Hamilton County, Ohio. PICU admission and bed-day rates were calculated by using numerators of admissions and bed days, respectively, over a denominator of tract child population. Relationships between tract-level PICU use and child poverty were assessed by using Spearman's rho and analysis of variance. Analyses were event based; children admitted multiple times were counted as discrete admissions. RESULTS: There were 4071 included admissions involving 3129 unique children contributing a total of 12297 PICU bed days. Child poverty was positively associated with PICU admission rates (r = 0.59; P < .001) and bed-day rates (r = 0.47; P < .001). When tracts were grouped into quintiles based on child poverty rates, the PICU bed-day rate ranged from 23.4 days per 1000 children in the lowest poverty quintile to 81.9 days in the highest poverty quintile (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The association between poverty and poor health outcomes includes pediatric intensive care use. This association exists for children who grow up in poverty and around poverty. Future efforts should characterize the interplay between patient- and neighborhood-level risk factors and explore neighborhood-level interventions to improve child health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据