Search

Increase in travel time, beyond a critical point, to emergency care may lead to a residential disparity in the outcome of patients with acute conditions. However, few studies have evaluated the evidence of travel time benchmarks in view of the association between travel time and outcome. Thus, this study aimed to establish the optimal hospital access time (OHAT) for emergency care in South Korea. We used nationwide healthcare claims data collected by the National Health Insurance System database of South Korea. Claims data of 445,548 patients who had visited emergency centers between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2014 were analyzed. Travel time, by vehicle from the residence of the patient, to the emergency center was calculated. Thirteen emergency care–sensitive conditions (ECSCs) were selected by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The 30-day mortality after discharge was set as the outcome measure of emergency care. A change-point analysis was performed to identify the threshold where the mortality of ECSCs changed significantly. The differences in risk-adjusted mortality between patients living outside of OHAT and those living inside OHAT were evaluated. Five ECSCs showed a significant threshold where the mortality changed according to their OHAT. These were intracranial injury, acute myocardial infarction, other acute ischemic heart disease, fracture of the femur, and sepsis. The calculated OHAT were 71–80 min, 31–40 min, 70–80 min, 41–50 min, and 61–70 min, respectively. Those who lived outside the OHAT had higher risks of death, even after adjustment (adjusted OR: 1.04–7.21; 95% CI: 1.03–26.34). In conclusion, the OHAT for emergency care with no significant increase in mortality is in the 31–80 min range. Optimal travel time to hospital should be established by optimal time for outcomes, and not by geographic time, to resolve the disparities in geographical accessibility to emergency care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The appropriate classification of study designs is important for review and assessment of the relevant scientific literature as a basis for decision making; however, little is known about whether study designs have been appropriately reported in the dermatology literature.Objective: We aimed to validate the study designs in the dermatology literature and investigate discrepancies between author-reported and actual study designs.Methods: We reviewed all issues of 3 major dermatology journals from January to December 2016. A total of 295 original articles investigating associations between exposures and health outcomes were included for analysis. We used a validated algorithm to classify the study designs.Results: Among the 295 articles, 174 (59.0%) clearly mentioned the study design in the text. All interventional studies were correctly classified on the basis of study design (n = 42); however, 35 of 132 observational studies (26.5%) showed discrepancies between the author-reported and actual study design. When the author-reported design was a prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, or case-control study (n = 61), approximately half of the studies were misclassified by the authors (n = 30).Limitations: We analyzed only 3 journals in the dermatology field.Conclusions: Our findings revealed substantial discrepancies between author-reported and actual study designs in the dermatologic literature, particularly among observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to identify the factors influencing South Korean voters’ attitudes towards increasing public expenditure on health and to identify whether the issue of healthcare expenditure influenced candidate choice in the 2012 Korean presidential election. The study used the data from a survey conducted by the Institute of Korean Politics at Seoul National University immediately following the 2012 presidential election. The survey was completed by a nationwide sample of 1,200 people aged 19 or over using a face-to-face interview method and proportional quota sampling based on sex, age, and region. About 44.3% of respondents had a positive attitude toward increasing public health expenditure. There was no significant difference by the candidate they supported (conservative Park Geun-hye or liberal Moon Jae-in). In particular, even 44.9% of conservative supporters agreed with more spending. Politically neutral respondents (OR = 1.76, 90% CI 1.22–2.54) and strong conservative party supporters (OR = 1.53, 90% CI 1.05–2.25) were more likely to support public health expenditure increase compared to strong liberal party supporters. Also, respondents who believed that the economic gap in the country was widening were 1.91 times more likely to support an increase in public health expenditures. However, the issue of health expenditure had no influence on voters’ choice of presidential candidates, and in particular no negative effect of choice of the ruling (conservative) party’s candidate. Our results should be interpreted with care; one possible reason for this lack of effect might be that constituents voted along partisan lines regardless of their attitude to the welfare issue; another possible explanation might be the success of the “left click strategy” of the conservative party. That is, the conservatives did not reject economic democratization or social welfare expansion. Further research should be done to explain why attitudes to health spending did not directly affect choice of candidate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to identify private clinics that have a potential to perform the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in a primary care setting in Korea where private specialists are dominant. Methods: The 2013 National Patient Sample claim data of Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in Korea was used. Two-step cluster analysis was performed using characteristics of private clinics, and patient and utilization characteristics of 27,797 private clinics. External validation of clusters was performed by assessing the association among clusters and outcomes of care provided by private clinics. Stability of clusters was cross-validated using discriminant analysis. Results: The result classified more than a half of private clinics into a potential PCP cluster. These were private clinics with specialties considered to be those of primary care physicians and were more likely to be located in non-metropolitan areas than specialized PCPs were. Compared to specialized PCPs, they had a higher percentage of pediatric and geriatric patients, patients with greater disease severity, a higher percentage of patients with complex comorbidities or with simple or minor disease groups, a higher number of patients and visits, and the same or higher quality of primary care. The most important factor in explaining variations between PCP clusters was the number of simple or minor disease groups per patient. Conclusion: This study identified potential PCPs and suggested the identifying criteria for PCPs. It will provide useful information for formulation of a primary care strengthening policy to policy makers in Korea as well as other countries with similar specialist-dominant primary care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]