Association of county‐level provider density with hepatobiliary cancer incidence and mortality

Background Access to healthcare providers is a key factor in reducing cancer incidence and mortality, underscoring the significance of provider density as a crucial metric of health quality. We sought to characterize the association of provider density on hepatobiliary cancer population‐level incide...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:World journal of surgery 2024-09, Vol.48 (9), p.2243-2252
Hauptverfasser: Khan, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi, Munir, Muhammad Musaab, Thammachack, Razeen, Endo, Yutaka, Altaf, Abdullah, Woldesenbet, Selamawit, Rashid, Zayed, Khalil, Mujtaba, Dillhoff, Mary, Tsai, Susan, Pawlik, Timothy M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Access to healthcare providers is a key factor in reducing cancer incidence and mortality, underscoring the significance of provider density as a crucial metric of health quality. We sought to characterize the association of provider density on hepatobiliary cancer population‐level incidence and mortality. Study Design County‐level hepatobiliary cancer incidence and mortality data from 2016 to 2020 and provider data from 2016 to 2018 were obtained from the CDC and Area Health Resource File. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to evaluate the relationship between provider density and hepatobiliary cancer incidence and mortality. Results Among 1359 counties, 851 (62.6%) and 508 (37.4%) counties were categorized as urban and rural, respectively. The median number of providers in any given county was 104 (IQR: 44–306), while provider density was 120.1 (IQR: 86.7–172.2) per 100,000 population; median household income was $51,928 (IQR: $45,050–$61,655). Low provider‐density counties were more likely to have a greater proportion of residents over 65 years of age (52.7% vs. 49.6%) who were uninsured (17.4% vs. 13.2%) versus higher provider‐density counties (p 
ISSN:0364-2313
1432-2323
1432-2323
DOI:10.1002/wjs.12316