Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36331503›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Drive Time and Receipt of Guideline-Recommended Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Arianne K Baldomero, Ken M Kunisaki, Chris H Wendt, Ann Bangerter, Susan J Diem, Kristine E Ensrud, David B Nelson, Carrie Henning-Smith, Bradley A Bart, Patrick Hammett and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Beyond Geography: Using a Cluster-Based Analysis to Conceptualize the Rurality of Veterans Health Administration Hospitals.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cardiac Rehabilitation Among Veterans: A Narrative Review.Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arianne K BaldomeroPulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ken M KunisakiPulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Chris H WendtPulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ann BangerterCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Susan J DiemCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Kristine E EnsrudCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
David B NelsonCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Carrie Henning-SmithDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Bradley A BartCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Patrick HammettCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Hildi J HagedornCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
R Adams DudleyPulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Minneapolis VA Health Care System · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR002492 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI INGBAR, DAVID H · 2018 to 2022
$6.3M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002492NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Many patients do not receive recommended services. Drive time to health care services may affect receipt of guideline-recommended care, but this has not been comprehensively studied. Objective: To assess associations between drive time to care and receipt of guideline-recommended screening, diagnosis, and treatment interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used administrative data from the National Veterans Health Administration (VA) data merged with Medicare data. Eligible participants were patients using VA services between January 2016 and December 2019. Women ages 65 years or older without underlying bone disease were assessed for osteoporosis screening. Patients with new diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) indicated by at least 2 encounter codes for COPD or at least 1 COPD-related hospitalization were assessed for receipt of diagnostic spirometry. Patients hospitalized for ischemic heart disease were assessed for cardiac rehabilitation treatment. Exposures: Drive time from each patient's residential address to the closest VA facility where the service was available, measured using geocoded addresses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Binary outcome at the patient level for receipt of osteoporosis screening, spirometry, and cardiac rehabilitation. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between drive time and receipt of services. Results: Of 110 780 eligible women analyzed, 36 431 (32.9%) had osteoporosis screening (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [5.4] years; 19 422 [17.5%] Black, 63 403 [57.2%] White). Of 281 130 patients with new COPD diagnosis, 145 249 (51.7%) had spirometry (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [11.5] years; 268 999 [95.7%] men; 37 834 [13.5%] Black, 217 608 [77.4%] White). Of 73 146 patients hospitalized for ischemic heart disease, 11 171 (15.3%) had cardiac rehabilitation (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [10.8] years; 71 217 [97.4%] men; 15 213 [20.8%] Black, 52 144 [71.3%] White). The odds of receiving recommended services declined as drive times increased. Compared with patients with a drive time of 30 minutes or less, patients with a drive time of 61 to 90 minutes had lower odds of receiving osteoporosis screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95) and spirometry (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.92) while patients with a drive time of 91 to 120 minutes had lower odds of receiving cardiac rehabilitation (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87). Results were similar in analyses restricted to urban patients or patients whose primary care clinic was in a tertiary care center. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, longer drive time was associated with less frequent receipt of guideline-recommended services across multiple components of care. To improve quality of care and health outcomes, health systems and clinicians should adopt strategies to mitigate travel burden, even for urban patients.

Indexed as

Myocardial IschemiaOsteoporosisPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMedicareRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID36331503
PMCPMC9636523
OpenAlexW4308327776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.