Wilson Lucy E, Korthuis Todd, Fleishman John A, Conviser Richard, Lawrence Perrin B, Moore Richard D, Gebo Kelly A
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Infectious Disease and Environmental Health Administration, Baltimore, MD, USA.
AIDS Care. 2011 Aug;23(8):971-9. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2010.543878. Epub 2011 Jun 28.
Geographic location may be related to the receipt of quality HIV health care services. Clinical outcomes and health care utilization were evaluated in rural, urban, and peri-urban patients seen at high-volume US urban-based HIV care sites.
Zip codes for 8773 HIV patients followed in 2005 at seven HIV Research Network sites were categorized as rural (population <10,000), peri-urban (10,000-100,000), and urban (>100,000). Clinical and demographic characteristics, inpatient and outpatient (OP) utilization, AIDS-defining illness rates, receipt of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), opportunistic infection (OI) prophylaxis usage, and virologic suppression were compared among patients, using χ(2) tests for categorical variables, t-tests for means, and logistic regression for HAART utilization.
HIV-infected rural (n=170) and peri-urban (n=215) patients were less likely to be Black or Hispanic than urban HIV patients. Peri-urban subjects were more likely to report MSM as their HIV risk factor than rural or urban subjects. Age, gender, CD4 or HIV-RNA distribution, virologic suppression, HAART usage, or OI prophylaxis did not differ by geographic location. In multivariate analysis, rural and peri-urban patients were less likely to have four or more annual outpatient visits than urban patients. Rural patients were less likely to receive HAART if they were Black. Overall, geographic location (as defined by home zip code) did not affect receipt of HAART or OI prophylaxis.
Although demographic and health care utilization differences were seen among rural, peri-urban, and urban HIV patients, most HIV outcomes and medication use were comparable across geographic areas. As with HIV care for urban-dwelling patients, areas for improvement for non-urban HIV patients include access to HAART among minorities and injection drug users.
地理位置可能与获得高质量的艾滋病毒医疗服务有关。在以美国城市为基础的高容量艾滋病毒护理场所就诊的农村、城市和城郊患者中,对临床结局和医疗服务利用情况进行了评估。
2005年在七个艾滋病毒研究网络站点随访的8773名艾滋病毒患者的邮政编码被分类为农村(人口<10000)、城郊(10000 - 100000)和城市(>100000)。比较了患者的临床和人口统计学特征、住院和门诊利用情况、艾滋病定义疾病发生率、高效抗逆转录病毒治疗(HAART)的接受情况、机会性感染(OI)预防措施的使用情况以及病毒学抑制情况,分类变量采用χ(2)检验,均值采用t检验,HAART利用情况采用逻辑回归分析。
与城市艾滋病毒患者相比,农村(n = 170)和城郊(n = 215)感染艾滋病毒的患者为黑人或西班牙裔的可能性较小。城郊受试者比农村或城市受试者更有可能报告男男性行为者为其艾滋病毒风险因素。年龄、性别、CD4或艾滋病毒RNA分布、病毒学抑制、HAART使用情况或OI预防措施在地理位置上没有差异。在多变量分析中,农村和城郊患者每年进行四次或更多次门诊就诊的可能性低于城市患者。如果农村患者是黑人,则接受HAART的可能性较小。总体而言,地理位置(由家庭邮政编码定义)不影响HAART或OI预防措施的接受情况。
尽管在农村、城郊和城市艾滋病毒患者中观察到了人口统计学和医疗服务利用方面的差异,但大多数艾滋病毒结局和药物使用在不同地理区域是可比的。与城市居住患者的艾滋病毒护理一样,非城市艾滋病毒患者需要改进的方面包括少数族裔和注射吸毒者获得HAART的机会。