4.7 Article

Associations of cold temperatures with GP consultations for respiratory and cardiovascular disease amongst the elderly in London

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 825-830

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/31.4.825

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The relationships between cold temperatures and cardio-respiratory mortality in the elderly are well documented. We wished to determine whether similar relationships exist with consultations in the primary care setting and to assess the lag time at which the effects were observed. Methods Generalized additive models were used to regress time-series of daily numbers of general practitioner (GP) consultations by the elderly against temperature, after control for possible confounders and adjustment for overdispersion and serial correlation. Consultation data were available from between 38 452 and 42 772 registered patients aged greater than or equal to65 years from 45-47 London practices contributing to the General Practice Research Database between January 1992 and September 1995. Results There was little relationship between consultations for respiratory disease and mean temperature on the same day as the day of consultation. However, a strong association was apparent with temperature levels up to 15 days previously, with an increase in consultations being observed particularly as temperatures drop below 5degreesC. Every 1degreesC decrease in mean temperatures below 5degreesC was associated with a 10.5% (95% CI: 7.6%, 13.4%) increase in all respiratory consultations. No relationship was observed between cold temperatures and GP consultations for cardiovascular disease. Conclusions Our study suggests a delayed effect of a drop in temperature on consultations for respiratory disease in the primary care setting. Information such as this could be used to help prepare practices to anticipate increases in respiratory consultation rates associated with low temperatures.

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