Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33290435›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study.

Nadereh Pourat, Xiao Chen, Connie Lu, Weihao Zhou, Hank Hoang, Alek Sripipatana

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nadereh PouratCenter for Health Policy Research, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5118-1188
Xiao ChenCenter for Health Policy Research, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Connie LuCenter for Health Policy Research, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Weihao ZhouCenter for Health Policy Research, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Hank HoangBureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8538-8515
Alek SripipatanaBureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3078-0111

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the United States, there are nearly 1,400 Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers (HCs) serving low-income and underserved populations and more than 600 of these HCs are located in rural areas. Disparities in quality of medical care in urban vs. rural areas exist but data on such differences between urban and rural HCs is limited in the literature. We examined whether urban and rural HCs differed in their performance on clinical quality measures before and after controlling for patient, organizational, and contextual characteristics. METHODS AND

findingsWe used the 2017 Uniform Data System to examine performance on clinical quality measures between urban and rural HCs (n = 1,373). We used generalized linear regression models with the logit link function and binomial distribution, controlling for confounding factors. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found on par performance between urban and rural HCs in all but one clinical quality measure. Rural HCs had lower rates of linking patients newly diagnosed with HIV to care (74% [95% CI: 69%, 80%] vs. 83% [95% CI: 80%, 86%]). We identified control variables that systematically accounted for eliminating urban vs. rural differences in performance on clinical quality measures. We also found that both urban and rural HCs had some clinical quality performance measures that were lower than available national benchmarks. Main limitations included potential discrepancy of urban or rural designation across all HC sites within a HC organization.

conclusionsFindings highlight HCs' contributions in addressing rural disparities in quality of care and identify opportunities for improvement. Performance in both rural and urban HCs may be improved by supporting programs that increase the availability of providers, training, and provision of technical resources.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesHumansQuality of Health CareRural Health ServicesRural PopulationUnited StatesUnited States Health Resources and Services AdministrationUrban Health ServicesUrban PopulationWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID33290435
PMCPMC7723285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.