4.6 Article

Impact of primary care provider density on detection and diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200097

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Early diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma is critical in preventing melanoma-associated deaths, but the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in diagnosing melanoma is underexplored. We aimed to explore the association of PCP density with melanoma incidence and mortality. Methods All cases of cutaneous melanoma diagnosed in the United States from 2008-2012 and reported in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were analyzed in 2016. County-level primary care physician density was obtained from the Area Health Resources File (AHRF). We conducted multivariate linear regression using 1) average annual melanoma incidence or 2) average annual melanoma mortality by county as primary outcomes, adjusting for demographic confounders and dermatologist density. Cox proportional hazard regression was conducted using individual outcome data from SEER with the same covariates. Results Across 611 counties, 167,305 cases of melanoma were analyzed. Per 100,000 people, an additional 10 PCPs per county was associated with 1.62 additional cases of melanoma per year (95% CI 1.06-2.18, p<0.001). This increased incidence occurred disproportionally in early-stage melanoma (Stage 0: 0.69 cases (0.38-1.00), p<0.001; Stage I: 0.63 cases (0.37-0.89), p<0.001; Stage II: 0.11 cases (0.03-0.19), p = 0.005). There was no statistically significant association between PCP density and incidence of stage III or IV melanoma, or with melanoma-specific mortality. Survival analysis demonstrated elimination of 5-year post-diagnosis mortality risk in medically underserved counties after adjusting stage. Conclusions Higher densities of PCPs may be linked to increased diagnosis of early-stage melanoma without corresponding decreases in late-stage diagnoses or melanoma-associated mortality.

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

4.6
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