Suchergebnisse

IntroductionHospital utilization varies across socioeconomic and demographic strata in Canada, which has a universal health care system that grants essential services to everyone. Rates of adverse birth outcomes are known to differ among high and low SES women, but less is known of the excess burden attached to those outcomes across Canadian provinces.
ObjectiveTo examine length of stay for childbirth relative to women's socio-demographic characteristics, in the context of the Canadian universal health care system.
MethodsA population-based record linkage between the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) cycles 3.1 (2005) and 4.1 (2007/8), and the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) allowed the tracking of hospital utilization for linked survey respondents between 2005 and 2009. Hourly length of stay for delivery was modeled by socio-demographic factors, controlling for other clinical and individual-level characteristics.
ResultsThere were 7,166 complete delivery records from 5,570 female CCHS respondents who agreed to link and share their information. Women with the lowest income had on average, four-hour longer stays for vaginal delivery as compared to high-income women (IRR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p=0.01), and eight-hour longer stays for Caesarian delivery (IRR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95-1.22, p=0.23). A greater proportion of teenage pregnancy was seen for Aboriginal girls. Aboriginal status and rural area of residence were co-determinants of elevated length of stay.
ConclusionThe absence of egregious socio-demographic differences regarding childbirth is reassuring for the Canadian health care system. However, the persistence of marginally longer, and in turn, costlier visits for low-income and rural Aboriginal women is suggestive that policies of cash transfers during the prenatal period might be highly cost-effective if they achieve population-wide reductions in length of stay.

ABSTRACTObjectivesBirth and delivery in hospital is one of the most common medical procedures in Canadian hospitals, and can be used to assess equity in the delivery of health care. This study investigates the association between socioeconomic status and hospital burden for childbirth using linked Canadian survey and administrative databases, accounting for a wide array of other individual and health-care related characteristics.
ApproachA population-based record linkage between national health survey data and the Canadian Discharge Abstract Database (a census of all Canadian hospital separations) allowed the tracking of hospital utilization between 2005 and 2009 for which individual-level socioeconomic and demographic factors were also available. Length of stay for delivery, risk of pre-delivery hospitalization within 30 days of admission for delivery, and risk of maternal readmission within 30 days of discharge for delivery were the three measures of hospital utilization modeled.
ResultsComplete information for 7,163 deliveries of 5,568 women was available and used in the models of length of stay and risk of maternal admission pre- and post-delivery. In fully adjusted models, predicted length of stay was graded by household income with longest stays for lowest income women (2.79 days, 95% CI 2.61-2.92), followed by middle income women (2.63 days, 95% CI 2.50-2.76) and high income women (2.56 days, 95% CI 2.49-2.63). Factors intrinsic to routine hospital care and protocol such as province and vaginal versus Cesarean section delivery were stronger predictors of length of stay than income. Additionally, Aboriginal status, compounded with residing in a rural setting was associated with higher predicted probability of maternal readmission.
ConclusionsLow income women have marginally longer stays in hospital following birth events than do middle and high-income women in Canada that persist after adjustment for strong drivers of length of stay (parity and birth mode). While this may suggest that more complicated cases are benefiting from longer stays in hospital, it provokes the question as to whether there may be additional reductions in length of stay that could be achieved through resource redistribution to the prenatal period. Overall, the results suggest that equity goals of the Canadian health care system are being achieved for birth-related hospitalizations, and the availability of these linked data will be key for further comprehensive evaluation of population health status.

POLICY POINTS: Historically, reforms that have increased the duration of job‐protected paid parental leave have improved women's economic outcomes. By targeting the period around childbirth, access to paid parental leave also appears to reduce rates of infant mortality, with breastfeeding representing one potential mechanism. The provision of more generous paid leave entitlements in countries that offer unpaid or short durations of paid leave could help families strike a balance between the competing demands of earning income and attending to personal and family well‐being. CONTEXT: Policies legislating paid leave from work for new parents, and to attend to individual and family illness, are common across Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) countries. However, there exists no comprehensive review of their potential impacts on economic, social, and health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the peer‐reviewed literature on paid leave and socioeconomic and health outcomes. We reviewed 5,538 abstracts and selected 85 published papers on the impact of parental leave policies, 22 papers on the impact of medical leave policies, and 2 papers that evaluated both types of policies. We synthesized the main findings through a narrative description; a meta‐analysis was precluded by heterogeneity in policy attributes, policy changes, outcomes, and study designs. FINDINGS: We were able to draw several conclusions about the impact of parental leave policies. First, extensions in the duration of paid parental leave to between 6 and 12 months were accompanied by attendant increases in leave‐taking and longer durations of leave. Second, there was little evidence that extending the duration of paid leave had negative employment or economic consequences. Third, unpaid leave does not appear to confer the same benefits as paid leave. Fourth, from a population health perspective, increases in paid parental leave were consistently associated with better infant and child health, particularly ...

AbstractBackgroundHydroxychloroquine has been shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, but early clinical studies found no benefit treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We set out to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for prevention, as opposed to treatment, of COVID-19 mortality.MethodsWe pre-specified and conducted an observational, population-based cohort study using national primary care data and linked death registrations in the OpenSAFELY platform, representing 40% of the general population in England. We used Cox regression to estimate the association between ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in England and risk of COVID-19 mortality among people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Model adjustment was informed by a directed acyclic graph.ResultsOf 194,637 patients with RA or SLE, 30,569 (15.7%) received ≥ 2 prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine in the six months prior to 1 March 2020. Between 1 March 2020 and 13 July 2020, there were 547 COVID-19 deaths, 70 among hydroxychloroquine users. Estimated standardised cumulative COVID-19 mortality was 0.23% (95% CI 0.18–0.29) among users and 0.22% (95% CI 0.20–0.25) among non-users; an absolute difference of 0.008% (95% CI –0.051-0.066). After accounting for age, sex, ethnicity, use of other immunuosuppressives, and geographic region, no association with COVID-19 mortality was observed (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80–1.33). We found no evidence of interactions with age or other immunosuppressives. Quantitative bias analyses indicated observed associations were robust to missing information regarding additional biologic treatments for rheumatological disease. We observed similar associations with the negative control outcome of non-COVID-19 mortality.ConclusionWe found no evidence of a difference in COVID-19 mortality among patients who received hydroxychloroquine for treatment of rheumatological disease prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in England.Research in contextEvidence before this studyPublished trials and observational studies to date have shown no evidence of benefit of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for hospitalised patients who already have COVID-19. A separate question remains: whether routine ongoing use of hydroxychloroquine in people without COVID-19 protects against new infections or severe outcomes. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for pharmacoepidemiological studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe COVID-19 outcomes. The keywords "hydroxychloroquine AND (COVID OR coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (prophyl* OR prevent*) AND (rate OR hazard OR odds OR risk)" were used and results were filtered to articles from the last year with abstracts available. 109 papers were identified for screening; none investigated pre-exposure prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Clinical trials of prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine are ongoing; however, the largest trial does not expect to meet recruitment targets due to "…unjustified extrapolation and exaggerated safety concerns together with intense politicisation and negative publicity." In the absence of reported clinical trials, evidence can be generated from real-world data to support the need for randomised clinical trials.Added value of this studyIn this cohort study representing 40% of the population of England, we investigated whether routine use of hydroxychloroquine prior to the COVID-19 outbreak prevented COVID-19 mortality. Using robust pharmacoepidemiological methods, we found no evidence to support a substantial benefit of hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 mortality. At the same time, we have shown no significant harm, and this generates the equipoise to justify continuing randomised trials. We have demonstrated in this study that it is feasible to address specific hypotheses about medicines in a rapid and transparent manner to inform interim clinical decision making and support the need for large-scale, randomised trial data.Implications of all the available evidenceThis is the first study to investigate the ongoing routine use of hydroxychloroquine and risk of COVID-19 mortality in a general population. While we found no evidence of any protective benefit, due to the observational nature of the study, residual confounding remains a possibility. Completion of trials for prevention of severe outcomes is warranted, but prior to the completion of these, we found no evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19 mortality.