ArticleJAMA network open2024
Provision of Stroke Care Services by Community Disadvantage Status in the US, 2009-2022.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breaking barriers in stroke care: the role of peripheral interventional radiologists in mechanical thrombectomy.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and risk factors of stroke in the Americas: a comprehensive narrative literature review.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- Stroke Technology Diffusion in Rural Settings: Differential Exposure to Certification Levels by Community Income Levels.Neurology · 2026Article
- Outcomes for Black and White Patients After Certification of Nearby Stroke Centers.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Stroke Center Certification and Within-Hospital Racial Disparities in Treatment.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Opportunities in stroke care at safety net hospitals: A socioecological perspective.Equity neuroscience · 2025Article
- Treatments and Patient Outcomes Following Stroke Center Expansion.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Error in Results.JAMA network open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Stroke center certification is granted to facilities that demonstrate distinct capabilities for treating patients with stroke. A thorough understanding of structural discrimination in the provision of stroke centers is critical for identifying and implementing effective interventions to improve health inequities for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Objective: To determine whether (1) hospitals in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities (defined using the Area Deprivation Index) are less likely to adopt any stroke certification and (2) adoption rates differ between entry-level (acute stroke-ready hospitals) and higher-level certifications (primary, thrombectomy capable, and comprehensive) by community disadvantage status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used newly collected stroke center data merged with data from the American Hospital Association, Healthcare Cost Report Information datasets, and the US Census. All general acute hospitals in the continental US between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2022, were included. Data analysis was conducted from July 2023 to May 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the likelihood of hospitals adopting stroke care certification. Cox proportional hazard and competing risk models were used to estimate the likelihood of a hospital becoming stroke certified based on the socioeconomic disadvantage status of the community. Results: Among the 5055 hospitals studied from 2009 to 2022, 2415 (47.8%) never achieved stroke certification, 602 (11.9%) were certified as acute stroke-ready hospitals, and 2038 (40.3%) were certified as primary stroke centers or higher. When compared with mixed-advantage communities, adoption of any stroke certification was most likely to occur near the most advantaged communities (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44) and least likely near the most disadvantaged communities (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.55). Adoption of acute stroke-ready certification was most likely in mixed-advantage communities, while adoption of higher-level certification was more likely in the most advantaged communities (HR,1.41; 95% CI, 1.22-1.62) and less likely for the most disadvantaged communities (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.45). After adjusting for population size and hospital capacity, compared with mixed-advantage communities, stroke certification adoption hazard was still 20% lower for relatively disadvantaged communities (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87) and 42% lower for the most disadvantaged communities (adjusted HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.74). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study examining hospital adoption of stroke services, when compared with mixed-advantage communities, hospitals located in the most disadvantaged communities had a 42% lower hazard of adopting any stroke certification and relatively disadvantaged communities had a 20% lower hazard of adopting any stroke certification. These findings suggest that there is a need to support hospitals in disadvantaged communities to obtain stroke certification as a way to reduce stroke disparities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.