Analysis of a telephone survey by Gina Ogilvie and colleagues identifies the parental factors associated with HPV vaccine uptake in a school-based program in Canada.
Animal contact is a potential transmission route for campylobacteriosis, and both domestic household pet and petting zoo exposures have been identified as potential sources of exposure. Research has typically focussed on the prevalence, concentration, and transmission of zoonoses from farm animals to humans, yet there are gaps in our understanding of these factors among animals in contact with the public who don’t live on or visit farms. This study aims to quantify, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the prevalence and concentration of Campylobacter carriage in household pets and petting zoo animals. Four databases were accessed for the systematic review (PubMed, CAB direct, ProQuest, and Web of Science) for papers published in English from 1992–2012, and studies were included if they examined the animal population of interest, assessed prevalence or concentration with fecal, hair coat, oral, or urine exposure routes (although only articles that examined fecal routes were found), and if the research was based in Canada, USA, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Studies were reviewed for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis by two reviewers, compiled into a database, and relevant studies were used to create a weighted mean prevalence value. There were insufficient data to run a meta-analysis of concentration values, a noted study limitation. The mean prevalence of Campylobacter in petting zoo animals is 6.5% based on 7 studies, and in household pets the mean is 24.7% based on 34 studies. Our estimated concentration values were: 7.65x103cfu/g for petting zoo animals, and 2.9x105cfu/g for household pets. These results indicate that Campylobacter prevalence and concentration are lower in petting zoo animals compared with household pets and that both of these animal sources have a lower prevalence compared with farm animals that do not come into contact with the public. There is a lack of studies on Campylobacter in petting zoos and/or fair animals in Canada and abroad. Within this literature, knowledge gaps were identified, and include: a lack of concentration data reported in the literature for Campylobacter spp. in animal feces, a distinction between ill and diarrheic pets in the reported studies, noted differences in shedding and concentrations for various subtypes of Campylobacter, and consistent reporting between studies.
BackgroundA small proportion of the population consumes the majority of health care resources. High-cost health care users are a heterogeneous group. We aim to segment a provincial population into relevant homogenous sub-groups to provide actionable information on risk factors associated with high-cost health care use within sub-populations.MethodsThe Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) Population Grouping methodology was used to define mutually exclusive and clinically relevant health profile sub-groups. High-cost users (> = 90th percentile of health care spending) were defined within each sub-group. Univariate analyses explored demographic, socio-economic status, health status and health care utilization variables associated with high-cost use. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed for the costliest health profile groups.ResultsFrom 2015 to 2017, 1,175,147 individuals were identified for study. High-cost users consumed 41% of total health care resources. Average annual health care spending for individuals not high-cost were $642; high-cost users were $16,316. The costliest health profile groups were ‘long-term care’, ‘palliative’, ‘major acute’, ‘major chronic’, ‘major cancer’, ‘major newborn’, ‘major mental health’ and ‘moderate chronic’. Both ‘major acute’ and ‘major cancer’ health profile groups were largely explained by measures of health care utilization and multi-morbidity. In the remaining costliest health profile groups modelled, ‘major chronic’, ‘moderate chronic’, ‘major newborn’ and ‘other mental health’, a measure of socio-economic status, low neighbourhood income, was statistically significantly associated with high-cost use.InterpretationModel results point to specific, actionable information within clinically meaningful subgroups to reduce high-cost health care use. Health equity, specifically low socio-economic status, was statistically significantly associated with high-cost use in the majority of health profile sub-groups. Population segmentation methods, and more specifically, the CIHI Population Grouping Methodology, provide specificity to high-cost health care use; informing interventions aimed at reducing health care costs and improving population health.
Cancer is a major public health problem, and cancer patients and survivors face many physical and emotional challenges after the initial diagnosis, through treatment, and in the post-treatment period. Different integrative medicine (IM) modalities can be used to mitigate some of the physical issues that originate from the cancer itself or the treatment and to promote well-being and emotional health. Here, we discuss how an IM Department can function in a hospital system, particularly with regard to oncology patients, the modalities appropriate for oncology patients, how these modalities can benefit this patient population, and the role of IM in cancer survivorship. A dedicated IM Department that works with oncologists provides support and care for the whole person. These different modalities work together to reduce pain, anxiety, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and peripheral neuropathy, while promoting immune function and improving sleep, range of motion, and an overall sense of well-being. However, each modality has different contraindications for the oncology patient, and proper training is required for safe and effective care. We illustrate how IM can be a valuable component of the care of the oncology patient.
ObjectiveA small proportion of the population accounts for the majority of healthcare costs. Mental health and addiction (MHA) patients are consistently high-cost. We aimed to delineate factors amenable to public health action that may reduce high-cost use among a cohort of MHA clients in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.MethodsWe conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study. Administrative health data from fiscal years (FY) 2009–2015, linked at the individual level, were analyzed (n = 129,932). The outcome of interest was ≥ 90th percentile of costs for each year under study (‘persistent high-cost use’). Descriptive analyses were followed by logistic regression modelling; the latter excluded long-term care residents.ResultsThe average healthcare cost among study cohort members in FY 2009 was ~ $2300; for high-cost users it was ~ $19,000. Individuals with unstable housing and hospitalization(s) had increased risk of persistent high-cost use; both of these effects were more pronounced as comorbidities increased. Patients with schizophrenia, particularly those under 50 years old, had increased probability of persistent high-cost use. The probability of persistent high-cost use decreased with good connection to a primary care provider; this effect was more pronounced as the number of mental health conditions increased.ConclusionDespite constituting only 5% of the study cohort, persistent high-cost MHA clients (n = 6455) accounted for ~ 35% of total costs. Efforts to reduce high-cost use should focus on reduction of multimorbidity, connection to a primary care provider (particularly for those with more than one MHA), young patients with schizophrenia, and adequately addressing housing stability.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.17269/s41997-018-0101-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.