OBJECTIVES. Individual epidemiological investigations into the association between chlorination by-products in drinking water and cancer have been suggestive but inconclusive. Enough studies exist to provide the basis for a meaningful meta-analysis. METHODS. An extensive literature search was performed to identify pertinent case-control studies and cohort studies. Consumption of chlorinated water, surface water, or water with high levels of chloroform was used as a surrogate for exposure to chlorination by-products. Relative risk estimates were abstracted from the individual studies and pooled. RESULTS. A simple meta-analysis of all cancer sites yielded a relative risk estimate for exposure to chlorination by-products of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.20). Pooled relative risk estimates for organ-specific neoplasms were 1.21 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.34) for bladder cancer and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.87) for rectal cancer. When studies that adjusted for potential confounders were pooled separately, estimates of relative risks did not change substantially. CONCLUSIONS. The results of this meta-analysis suggest a positive association between consumption of chlorination by-products in drinking water and bladder and rectal cancer in humans.
Payers, accreditors, and consumers are using quality improvement (QI) methods, but little is known about whether physicians do so. The results from this 2003 national physician survey indicate that most do not. Physicians do not routinely use data for assessing their performance and are reluctant to share those data. They infrequently participate in redesign activities. Physicians in larger and salaried groups are more likely to be engaged in QI. The science of QI has been "institutionalized" but not yet "professionalized."Accelerating physicians' adoption of and participation in QI requires building the infrastructure to support quality and paying attention to professionalism, knowledge, and skills.
Guidelines are being vigorously promoted as a means to improve the effectiveness of the health care system. Current initiatives show both strengths and weaknesses. In particular, the attention now paid to the development of guidelines needs to be matched by attention to implementation strategies and to the scientific evaluation of their effectiveness in real clinical settings. Also, more agreement is needed on acceptable methods for developing guidelines, assessing their content, and evaluating their impact on professional behavior, patient outcomes, and health care costs. Fortunately, several initiatives to bring greater order and quality to this field are under way.
Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have attracted interest from many policy makers and clinical leaders because of their potential to improve the quality of care and reduce costs. Federal ACO programs for Medicare beneficiaries are now up and running, but little information is available about the baseline characteristics of early entrants. In this descriptive study we present data on the structural and market characteristics of these early ACOs and compare ACOs' patient populations, costs, and quality with those of their non-ACO counterparts at baseline. We found that ACO patients were more likely than non-ACO patients to be older than age eighty and had higher incomes. ACO patients were less likely than non-ACO patients to be black, covered by Medicaid, or disabled. The cost of care for ACO patients was slightly lower than that for non-ACO patients. Slightly fewer than half of the ACOs had a participating hospital. Hospitals that were in ACOs were more likely than non-ACO hospitals to be large, teaching, and not-for-profit, although there was little difference in their performance on quality metrics. Our findings can be useful in interpreting the early results from the federal ACO programs and in establishing a baseline to assess the programs' development.
Federal efforts to increase adoption have coincided with a rapid increase in HIT capacity. Delivery system and payment reforms and federally funded extension programs could offer promising pathways for further diffusion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.