ArticlePloS one2024
Rurality and patients' hospital experience: A multisite analysis from a US healthcare system.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe association between rurality of patients' residence and hospital experience is incompletely described. The objective of the study was to compare hospital experience by rurality of patients' residence.
methodsFrom a US Midwest institution's 17 hospitals, we included 56,685 patients who returned a post-hospital Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. We defined rurality using rural-urban commuting area codes (metropolitan, micropolitan, small town, rural). We evaluated the association of patient characteristics with top-box score (favorable response) for 10 HCAHPS items (six composite, two individual, two global). We obtained adjusted odds ratios (aOR [95% CI]) from logistic regression models including patient characteristics. We used key driver analysis to identify associations between HCAHPS items and global rating (combined overall rating of hospital and recommend hospital).
resultsOf all items, overall rating of hospital had lower odds of favorable response for patients from metropolitan (0.88 [0.81-0.94]), micropolitan (0.86 [0.79-0.94]), and small towns (0.90 [0.82-0.98]) compared with rural areas (global test, P = .003). For five items, lower odds of favorable response was observed for select areas compared with rural; for example, recommend hospital for patients from micropolitan (0.88 [0.81-0.97]) but not metropolitan (0.97 [0.89-1.05]) or small towns (0.93 [0.85-1.02]). For four items, rurality showed no association. In metropolitan, micropolitan, and small towns, men vs. women had higher odds of favorable response to most items, whereas in rural areas, sex-based differences were largely absent. Key driver analysis identified care transition, communication about medicines and environment as drivers of global rating, independent of rurality.
conclusionsRural patients reported similar or modestly more favorable hospital experience. Determinants of favorable experience across rurality categories may inform system-wide and targeted improvement.
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.