基于标准化患者法评价四川农村基层医生两种慢性病诊断准确性及其影响因素

目的 运用标准化患者法评估四川农村地区基层医生不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病两种慢性病诊断准确性现状,探讨基层医生两种慢性病诊断准确性的主要影响因素,为提升基层医生两种慢性病诊断准确性提供科学依据。方法 采用多阶段随机整群抽样方法,抽取四川省自贡市5个区/县50个乡镇100个村为研究现场,以调查当日在岗的全科及内科医生作为研究对象。共进行两轮数据采集,第1轮采集样本乡镇卫生院和村卫生室医生的基本信息;第1轮调查完成1个月后,运用标准化患者法开展第2轮调查,收集农村基层医生对不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病诊断结果信息。运用Logistic回归分析农村基层医生不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病诊断准确性的影响因素。结果 共纳入172名农村基层医生,完成186次标准化患者访问,正确诊断率为48.39%。其中不稳定型心绞痛的正确诊断率为18.68%(17/91),2型糖尿病的正确诊断率为76.84%(73/95)。Logistic回归分析显示,具有执业医师资质的农村基层医生更有可能做出正确诊断(OR=4.857,95%CI=1.076~21.933,P=0.040)。农村基层医生在诊断过程中涉及的必要问诊和检查条目越多,做出正确诊断的概率越高(OR=1.627,95%CI=1.065~2.485,P=0.024)。与不稳定型心绞痛相比,农村基层医生对2型糖尿病做出正确诊断的可能性更高(OR=6.306,95%CI=3.611~11.013,P<0.001)。结论 四川农村基层医生不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病诊断准确性整体较差,建议以基层医生慢性病诊断过程质量改善为突破口,提升基层医生执业水平,进而提高慢性病诊断准确性。     

一体化管理的老年综合评估护理模式对前列腺癌患者心理因素和生活质量的影响

目的探讨对前列腺癌患者采用一体化管理老年综合评估(CGA)护理模式对其心理因素和生活质量的影响。方法选取2020年3月至2021年3月在南京市第一医院就诊,确诊为前列腺癌,且首次行腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的患者96例,随机分为对照组、观察1组、观察2组,各32例。对照组为住院后采用常规护理模式进行护理,观察1组为入院后行CGA干预组,观察2组为一体化管理的CGA干预组。三组患者分别在干预前、出院时,进行焦虑自评量表(SAS)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)测评;在干预前、术后30 d,进行生活质量核心量表QLQ-C30(V3.0)和前列腺癌特异性补充量表QLQ-PR25测评。结果出院时,观察2组SAS、SDS评分显著优于对照组及观察1组(P<0.05);术后30 d,观察2组生活质量QLQ-C30、QLQ-PR25评分显著优于对照组及观察1组(P<0.05)。结论一体化管理CGA护理模式可有效改善前列腺癌患者的心理状态,提高其术后生活质量。     

Fourteen years of the Pregnancy Registry on maternal immunisation with a reduced-antigen-content tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine

BackgroundGSK initiated a Pregnancy Registry in the United States (US) for the reduced-antigen-content tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap; Boostrix, GSK) vaccine with the aim to detect and describe pregnancy outcomes in women vaccinated with Boostrix 28 days before estimated conception or during pregnancy.MethodsVoluntary reports of pregnancy exposure to Boostrix received from spontaneous and post-marketing surveillance sources in the US were assessed. Reports were classified as prospective or retrospective based on the knowledge of pregnancy outcomes at the time of reporting. For completeness, reports of exposure to Boostrix or to the Tdap-inactivated poliovirus vaccine (Boostrix-IPV, GSK) reported to the global safety database from countries outside the US were also evaluated.ResultsFrom May 2005 to August 2019, 1517 (1455 prospective and 62 retrospective) pregnancy reports were received in the Boostrix US Pregnancy Registry. Of the prospective reports, 250 had known outcomes: 244 live infants with no apparent birth defects (BDs), three live infants with BDs, and three spontaneous abortions with no apparent BDs. Of the retrospective reports, 55 had known outcomes: 33 live infants with no apparent BDs, 16 live infants with BDs, one spontaneous abortion with no apparent BDs, four stillbirths with no apparent BDs, and one stillbirth with BDs. Cumulatively, 1321 pregnancy reports (1006 for Boostrix; 315 for Boostrix-IPV) were received from countries outside the US. Of these, 163 prospective reports and 551 retrospective reports had known outcomes. Results were in line with those from the Boostrix US Pregnancy Registry.ConclusionsData currently available from the Boostrix US Pregnancy Registry and from countries outside the US suggested that exposure to Boostrix or Boostrix-IPV during pregnancy does not raise safety concerns related to adverse pregnancy outcomes or BDs.     

The role of payment and financing in achieving health equity

Objective

The aim was to identify healthcare payment and financing reforms to promote health equity and ways that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) may promote those reforms.

Data Sources and Study Setting

AHRQ convened a payment and financing workgroup–the authors of this paper–as part of its Health Equity Summit held in July 2022. This workgroup drew from its collective experience with healthcare payment and financing reform, as well as feedback from participants in a session at the Health Equity Summit, to identify the evidence base and promising paths for reforms to promote health equity.

Study Design

The payment and financing workgroup developed an outline of reforms to promote health equity, presented the outline to participants in the payment and financing session of the July 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit, and integrated feedback from the participants.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

This paper did not require novel data collection; the authors collected the data from the existing evidence base.

Principal Findings

The paper outlines root causes of health inequity and corresponding potential reforms in five domains: (1) the differential distribution of resources between healthcare providers serving different communities, (2) scarcity of financing for populations most in need, (3) lack of integration/accountability, (4) patient cost barriers to care, and (5) bias in provider behavior and diagnostic tools.

Conclusions

Additional research is necessary to determine whether the proposed reforms are effective in promoting health equity.