Suppr超能文献

更多的新生儿重症监护就一定更好吗?来自生殖护理跨国比较的见解。

Is more neonatal intensive care always better? Insights from a cross-national comparison of reproductive care.

作者信息

Thompson Lindsay A, Goodman David C, Little George A

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, USA.

出版信息

Pediatrics. 2002 Jun;109(6):1036-43. doi: 10.1542/peds.109.6.1036.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite high per capita health care expenditure, the United States has crude infant survival rates that are lower than similarly developed nations. Although differences in vital recording and socioeconomic risk have been studied, a systematic, cross-national comparison of perinatal health care systems is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize systems of reproductive care for the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, including a detailed analysis of neonatal intensive care and mortality.

DESIGN/METHODS: Comparison of selected indicators of reproductive care and mortality from 1993-2000 through a systematic review of journal and government publications and structured interviews of leaders in perinatal and neonatal care.

RESULTS

Compared with the other 3 countries, the United States has more neonatal intensive care resources yet provides proportionately less support for preconception and prenatal care. Unlike the United States, the other countries provided free family planning services and prenatal and perinatal physician care, and the United Kingdom and Australia paid for all contraception. The United States has high neonatal intensive care capacity, with 6.1 neonatologists per 10 000 live births; Australia, 3.7; Canada, 3.3; and the United Kingdom, 2.7. For intensive care beds, the United States has 3.3 per 10 000 live births; Australia and Canada, 2.6; and the United Kingdom, 0.67. Greater neonatal intensive care resources were not consistently associated with lower birth weight-specific mortality. The relative risk (United States as reference) of neonatal mortality for infants <1000 g was 0.84 for Australia, 1.12 for Canada, and 0.99 for the United Kingdom; for 1000 to 2499 g infants, the relative risk was 0.97 for Australia, 1.26 for Canada, and 0.95 for the United Kingdom. As reported elsewhere, low birth weight rates were notably higher in the United States, partially explaining the high crude mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The United States has significantly greater neonatal intensive care resources per capita, compared with 3 other developed countries, without having consistently better birth weight-specific mortality. Despite low birth weight rates that exceed other countries, the United States has proportionately more providers per low birth weight infant, but offers less extensive preconception and prenatal services. This study questions the effectiveness of the current distribution of US reproductive care resources and its emphasis on neonatal intensive care.

摘要

背景

尽管美国人均医疗保健支出很高,但其婴儿粗死亡率却低于其他同等发达国家。虽然已经对生命记录和社会经济风险方面的差异进行了研究,但缺乏对围产期医疗保健系统的系统性跨国比较。

目的

描述美国、澳大利亚、加拿大和英国的生殖保健系统,包括对新生儿重症监护和死亡率的详细分析。

设计/方法:通过对期刊和政府出版物的系统回顾以及对围产期和新生儿护理领域领导者的结构化访谈,比较1993 - 2000年生殖保健和死亡率的选定指标。

结果

与其他三个国家相比,美国拥有更多的新生儿重症监护资源,但在孕前和产前护理方面提供的支持相对较少。与美国不同,其他国家提供免费的计划生育服务以及产前和围产期医生护理,英国和澳大利亚还支付所有避孕费用。美国新生儿重症监护能力较高,每10000例活产中有6.1名新生儿科医生;澳大利亚为3.7名;加拿大为3.3名;英国为2.7名。对于重症监护床位,美国每10000例活产中有3.3张;澳大利亚和加拿大为2.6张;英国为0.67张。更多的新生儿重症监护资源与较低的低体重儿特异性死亡率之间并没有始终如一的关联。体重<1000g婴儿的新生儿死亡率相对风险(以美国为参照),澳大利亚为0.84,加拿大为1.12,英国为0.99;对于体重1000至2499g的婴儿,澳大利亚的相对风险为0.97,加拿大为1.26,英国为0.95。正如其他地方所报道的,美国的低体重率明显更高,这部分解释了其较高的粗死亡率。

结论

与其他三个发达国家相比,美国人均拥有显著更多的新生儿重症监护资源,但在低体重儿特异性死亡率方面却并非始终更好。尽管美国的低体重率高于其他国家,但美国每例低体重儿的医疗服务提供者比例更高,但孕前和产前服务却不那么广泛。这项研究对美国目前生殖保健资源的分配及其对新生儿重症监护的重视程度的有效性提出了质疑。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验