Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39052294›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Provision of Stroke Care Services by Community Disadvantage Status in the US, 2009-2022.

Renee Y Hsia, Nandita Sarkar, Yu-Chu Shen

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Error in Results.JAMA network open · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Renee Y HsiaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Nandita SarkarNational Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Yu-Chu ShenNational Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Funding

NBER Center for Aging and Health Research-Post COVID-19 Experiences Among Adults with ADRDP30AG012810 · NIA · NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH · PI DAVID M CUTLER · 1999 to 2026
$24.6M
Structural Racism and Discrimination in the Expansion of Hospital Stroke Care Capacity: A Multi-Level Analysis on Access to Care, Treatment, and OutcomesR01MD017482 · NIMHD · NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH · PI HSIA, RENEE YUEN-JAN, SHEN, YU-CHU · 2022 to 2025
$2.2M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG012810NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD017482
6 · The paper itself

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

StrokeVulnerable PopulationsAgedCertificationCohort StudiesFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHospitalsHumansMaleSocioeconomic FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39052294
PMCPMC11273237

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.