Search

Previous studies indicate that increased healthcare access through Medicaid expansion and alleviation of socioeconomic stressors via higher minimum wages improved health outcomes. This study investigates the spatial relationships between the Medicaid expansion, minimum wage policy, and Alzheimer's Disease (AD) dementia prevalence across the US. We used county-level AD dementia prevalence adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education. Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) data, Medicaid expansion status, and state minimum wage law status were incorporated from CDC, Kaiser Family Foundation, and US Department of Labor sources, respectively. We employed the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic to identify hotspots and cold spots of AD dementia prevalence at the county level. We compared these locations with the overall SVI scores using univariate analyses. We also assessed the proportion of hot and cold spots at the state level based on Medicaid expansion and minimum wage status using the logistic regression model. The most vulnerable SVI quartile (Q4) had the highest number of hotspots (n = 311, 64.8%), while the least vulnerable quartile (Q1) had the fewest hotspots (n = 22, 4.6%) ( χ 2 = 307.41, p < 0.01). States that adopted Medicaid expansion had a significantly lower proportion of hotspots compared to non-adopting states (p < 0.05), and the non-adopting states had significantly higher odds of having hotspots than adopting states (OR = 2.58, 95% CI: 2.04–3.26, p < 0.001). Conversely, the non-adopting states had significantly lower odds of having cold spots compared to the adopting states (OR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.19–0.32, p < 0.01). States with minimum wage levels at or below the federal level showed significantly higher odds of having hotspots than states with a minimum wage above the federal level (OR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.51–2.49, p < 0.01). Our findings suggest significant disparities in AD dementia prevalence related to socioeconomic and policy factors and lay the groundwork for future causal analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers across the translational research continuum have emphasized the importance of integrating genomics into their research program. To date capacity and resources for genomics research have been limited; however, a recent population-wide genomic screening initiative launched at the Medical University of South Carolina in partnership with Helix has rapidly advanced the need to develop appropriate infrastructure for genomics research at our institution. We conducted a survey with researchers from across our institution (n = 36) to assess current knowledge about genomics health, barriers, and facilitators to uptake, and next steps to support translational research using genomics. We also completed 30-minute qualitative interviews with providers and researchers from diverse specialties (n = 8). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive analyses. A rapid assessment process was used to develop a preliminary understanding of each interviewee's perspective. These interviews were transcribed and coded to extract themes. The codes included types of research, alignment with precision health, opportunities to incorporate precision health, examples of researchers in the field, barriers, and facilitators to uptake, educational activity suggestions, questions to be answered, and other observations. Themes from the surveys and interviews inform implementation strategies that are applicable not only to our institution, but also to other organizations interested in making genomic data available to researchers to support genomics-informed translational research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) commonly contain patient addresses that provide valuable data for geocoding and spatial analysis, enabling more comprehensive descriptions of individual patients for clinical purposes. Despite the widespread use of EHRs in clinical decision support and interventions, no systematic review has examined the extent to which spatial analysis is used to characterize patient phenotypes., Objective: This study reviews advanced spatial analyses that used individual-level health data from EHRs within the United States to characterize patient phenotypes., Methods: We systematically evaluated English-language, peer-reviewed studies from the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases from inception to August 20, 2023, without imposing constraints on study design or specific health domains., Results: A substantial proportion of studies (>85%) were limited to geocoding or basic mapping without implementing advanced spatial statistical analysis, leaving only 49 studies that met the eligibility criteria. These studies used diverse spatial methods, with a predominant focus on clustering techniques, while spatiotemporal analysis (frequentist and Bayesian) and modeling were less common. A noteworthy surge (n=42, 86%) in publications was observed after 2017. The publications investigated a variety of adult and pediatric clinical areas, including infectious disease, endocrinology, and cardiology, using phenotypes defined over a range of data domains such as demographics, diagnoses, and visits. The primary health outcomes investigated were asthma, hypertension, and diabetes. Notably, patient phenotypes involving genomics, imaging, and notes were limited., Conclusions: This review underscores the growing interest in spatial analysis of EHR-derived data and highlights knowledge gaps in clinical health, phenotype domains, and spatial methodologies. We suggest that future research should focus on addressing these gaps and harnessing spatial analysis to enhance individual patient contexts and clinical decision support., (©Abolfazl Mollalo, Bashir Hamidi, Leslie A Lenert, Alexander V Alekseyenko. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 15.10.2024.)

We investigated the risks of post-acute and chronic adverse kidney outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pediatric population via a retrospective cohort study using data from the RECOVER program. We included 1,864,637 children and adolescents under 21 from 19 children's hospitals and health institutions in the US with at least six months of follow-up time between March 2020 and May 2023. We divided the patients into three strata: patients with pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD), patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) during the acute phase (within 28 days) of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and patients without pre-existing CKD or AKI. We defined a set of adverse kidney outcomes for each stratum and examined the outcomes within the post-acute and chronic phases after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In each stratum, compared with the non-infected group, patients with COVID-19 had a higher risk of adverse kidney outcomes. For patients without pre-existing CKD, there were increased risks of CKD stage 2+ (HR 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13-1.28) and CKD stage 3+ (HR 1.35; 95% CI: 1.15-1.59) during the post-acute phase (28 days to 365 days) after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Within the post-acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, children and adolescents with pre-existing CKD and those who experienced AKI were at increased risk of progression to a composite outcome defined by at least 50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73m 2 , End Stage Kidney Disease diagnosis, dialysis, or transplant., Competing Interests: Dr. Jhaveri is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Seqirus, Dynavax, receives an editorial stipend from Elsevier and Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and royalties from Up To Date/Wolters Kluwer. Dr. Ruby Patel is the Primary Investigator for FIONA study, no stipend or compensation being given. Dr. Modi reports research funding outside of this work from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Travere Therapeutics, and Boehringer Ingelheim. He is also the current director of the Kidney Research Network Data Coordinating Center. Dr. Harshman reports research funding outside of this work from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Harshman reports research funding outside of this work from Bayer Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Verghese reports research funding outside of this work from the Department of Defense and Viracor Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Dixon reports consultancies with Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Astra Zeneca Rare Disease, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, and Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals.