Background Health care disparities in Appalachia are well documented. However, no previous studies have examined possible differences in the utilization of breast reconstruction (BR) in Appalachia. This study aims to determine if a disparity in BR utilization exists in women from Appalachia Kentucky. Methods A retrospective, population-based cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015. The Kentucky Cancer Registry was queried to identify population-level data for female patients diagnosed with breast cancer and treated with mastectomy. A multivariate logistic regression model controlling for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics was constructed to predict the likelihood of BR. Results Bivariate testing showed differences (P < 0.0001) in BR utilization between Appalachian and non-Appalachian women in Kentucky (15.0% and 26.3%, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that women from Appalachia (odds ratio, 0.54; confidence interval (95), 0.48–0.61; P < 0.0001) were less likely to undergo BR than non-Appalachian women. Interestingly, the rate of BR increased over time in both Appalachian (r = 0.115; P < 0.0001) and non-Appalachian women (r = 0.148; P < 0.0001). Conclusions Despite the benefits of BR, women from Appalachia undergo BR at lower rates and are less likely to receive BR than non-Appalachian Kentuckians. Although the rates of BR increased over time in both populations, access to comprehensive breast cancer care remains a challenge for women from Kentucky's Appalachian region.
Introduction: Pediatric patients undergoing outpatient surgeries often receive prescriptions for postoperative pain, including opioid medications. As a result, the American Academy of Pediatrics formally challenged all pediatric surgeons to decrease opioid prescribing for common specialty-specific outpatient procedures at discharge. To meet this challenge, we designed a quality improvement project to decrease the average number of opioid doses administered to pediatric patients undergoing 3 common outpatient urologic surgeries: circumcision, orchiopexy, and inguinal hernia repair (IHR). Methods: We formally challenged providers at our institution to reduce opioid doses per prescription and administration to patients overall. We performed a retrospective chart review at our single pediatric institution to establish baseline opioid prescribing values from July 2017 to March 2018. We aimed to reduce this value by 50% in 6 months and sustain this decrease throughout the project duration. Results: We performed 1,518 orchiopexies, 1,505 circumcisions, and 531 IHRs. The percent change in the average number of opioid doses prescribed per patient from baseline values assessed to 2021 was statistically significant for orchiopexies (P < 0.0001), IHRs (P < 0.0001), and circumcisions (P < 0.0001). In addition, the change in the percentage of patients prescribed opioids from baseline was statistically significant for all 3 procedures (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This project demonstrated that through an organized quality improvement initiative, the average number of opioid medications prescribed and the total percentage of patients prescribed opioids following common outpatient pediatric urologic procedures can be decreased by at least 50% and sustained through project duration.
Background: The gate control theory asserts that non-painful stimuli can block pain perception. The ShotBlocker™ device is a plastic disk with blunt projections that rests on the skin, and we hypothesize that it will reduce pain during hand injections. Methods: This is a prospective randomized trial of 117 patients undergoing injections for common hand conditions. Patients were randomized into 3 groups: device, placebo (device with projections removed), and control. Patients recorded on an analog pain scale the pain severity of the injection, as well as their most recent tetanus shot. A normalized pain score was obtained from the difference between the injection and tetanus shot pain scores. The mean non-normalized and normalized scores for each treatment group were compared to the control group using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: There were 91 women and 26 men. Common diagnoses included trigger finger (n = 53), DeQuervain’s tendonitis (n = 33), and basal joint arthritis (n = 22). The groups did not differ significantly in age, gender, or diagnosis. Mean pain score in the device group was 5.2 out of 10, and it was 5.7 for the control group. The normalized pain score in the device group was significantly lower than the control group. Normalized and non-normalized pain scores for the placebo group were not significantly lower than the control group. Conclusions: The shot blocking device effectively reduced pain of injection versus controls when pain scores were normalized for pain tolerance. The modified device did not reduce the pain of injection, suggesting that gate control is the mechanism of action.
MP joint blocking orthosis for sagittal band injury led to mostly satisfactory results, with 71% of patients achieving good to excellent outcomes. Manual labor, longer symptom duration, and grade III injury were associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure. Table 87-1: Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants. Characteristics Number or Score Participants 94 Mean age (y) 36 AE 15 Male/female 65 (69%) / 29 (31%) Heavy manual labor/clerical with repetitive work/others (including unemployed) 23 / 34 / 37 Injured side (dominant:nondominant) 58 (62%): 36 (38%) Location (index/middle/ring/little finger) 9 / 50 / 24 / 11 *Injury severity (II:III) 38 (40%): 56 (60%) Sports-related/not sport-related 29 (31%) / 65 (69%) Time to diagnosis and treatment (wks) 2.0 AE 1.1 Duration of use of orthosis (wks) 4.0 AE 1.7 Values expressed with mean AE SDs or number of cases (proportion [%]); *Injury severity was evaluated using Rayan and Murray's classification.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.