• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一级创伤中心对重返工作岗位结果的影响。

Level-I trauma center effects on return-to-work outcomes.

机构信息

Research Center for Social Protection and Health Economics (PROESA), University Icesi, Cali, Colombia.

出版信息

Eval Rev. 2012 Apr;36(2):133-64. doi: 10.1177/0193841X12442674.

DOI:10.1177/0193841X12442674
PMID:22732226
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years in the United States. Injuries have a substantial economic cost. For that reason, regional systems of trauma care in which the more acutely injured patients are transported to Level-I (L-I) trauma centers (TCs) has been widely advocated. However, the cost of TC care is high, raising questions about the value of such an approach.

OBJECTIVES

To study L-I TC effectiveness and study return-to-work (RTW) outcomes.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Using data from National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma, the authors address the issue of selection bias by comparing naive estimates to matching techniques, as well as to nonlinear instrumental variable models (2SRI) and bivariate probit estimators.

SUBJECTS

Individuals ages 18-64 who were mainly working before traumatic injury. Patients selected for the study were treated at 69 hospitals located in 12 states in the United States. N = 1790.

MEASURES

Treatment is binary indicator on whether treated at L-I TC. Outcome is binary indicator on whether returned to work within 3 months after injury. Covariates include: demographics, pre-injury characteristics (job, health and insurance status), injury descriptors, other income sources, etc.

RESULTS

Across all models that control for unobserved factors, the authors find that L-I TC treatment is positively associated with RTW within 3 months after injury. The estimated average marginal effect of treatment on the probability of RTW ranges from 23 to 38 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

Benefits of L-I TC care extend beyond mortality and morbidity.

摘要

背景

在美国,1-44 岁人群的死亡原因首位是伤害。伤害具有巨大的经济成本。因此,广泛倡导建立创伤救治区域体系,将更严重的受伤患者转运至一级创伤中心(TC)。然而,TC 治疗的费用高昂,这引发了对这种方法的价值的质疑。

目的

研究一级 TC 的效果和研究重返工作岗位(RTW)的结果。

研究设计

利用国家创伤成本和结果研究的数据,作者通过将天真估计与匹配技术进行比较,以及与非线性工具变量模型(2SRI)和双变量概率单位估计器进行比较,解决了选择偏差问题。

研究对象

18-64 岁主要在创伤前工作的个体。研究选择的患者在 12 个州的 69 家医院接受治疗。n=1790。

测量

治疗是在一级 TC 治疗的二进制指标。结果是受伤后 3 个月内是否重返工作的二进制指标。协变量包括:人口统计学特征、受伤前的特征(工作、健康和保险状况)、损伤描述符、其他收入来源等。

结果

在控制未观察到的因素的所有模型中,作者发现一级 TC 治疗与受伤后 3 个月内的 RTW 呈正相关。治疗对 RTW 概率的平均边际效应估计值在 23%至 38%之间。

结论

一级 TC 治疗的益处不仅限于死亡率和发病率。

相似文献

1
Level-I trauma center effects on return-to-work outcomes.一级创伤中心对重返工作岗位结果的影响。
Eval Rev. 2012 Apr;36(2):133-64. doi: 10.1177/0193841X12442674.
2
Level-I trauma centre treatment effects on return to work in teaching hospitals.一级创伤中心对教学医院患者重返工作岗位的治疗效果。
Injury. 2014 Sep;45(9):1465-9. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.02.025. Epub 2014 Feb 27.
3
The value of trauma center care.创伤中心护理的价值。
J Trauma. 2010 Jul;69(1):1-10. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e03a21.
4
Survival benefit of transfer to tertiary trauma centers for major trauma patients initially presenting to nontertiary trauma centers.原发于非三甲创伤中心的严重创伤患者转送至三甲创伤中心的生存获益。
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;17(11):1223-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00918.x.
5
The National Study on Costs and Outcomes of Trauma.全国创伤成本与结果研究
J Trauma. 2007 Dec;63(6 Suppl):S54-67; discussion S81-6. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31815acb09.
6
What price commitment: what benefit? The cost of a saved life in a developing level I trauma center.何种价格承诺:何种益处?一级发展中创伤中心挽救一条生命的成本。
J Trauma. 2009 Nov;67(5):915-23. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181b848e7.
7
Do pediatric patients with trauma in Florida have reduced mortality rates when treated in designated trauma centers?在佛罗里达州,遭受创伤的儿科患者在指定创伤中心接受治疗时死亡率会降低吗?
J Pediatr Surg. 2008 Jan;43(1):212-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.09.047.
8
Long-term survival and return on investment after nonneurologic injury: implications for the elderly trauma patient.非神经系统损伤后的长期生存及投资回报:对老年创伤患者的影响
J Trauma. 2010 Jul;69(1):93-8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181df6734.
9
The implications of alcohol intoxication and the Uniform Policy Provision Law on trauma centers; a national trauma data bank analysis of minimally injured patients.酒精中毒及《统一政策条款法》对创伤中心的影响;一项关于轻伤患者的国家创伤数据库分析
J Trauma. 2009 Feb;66(2):495-8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31818234bf.
10
Level I versus Level II trauma centers: an outcomes-based assessment.一级创伤中心与二级创伤中心:基于结果的评估。
J Trauma. 2009 May;66(5):1321-6. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181929e2b.

引用本文的文献

1
Does the implementation of a trauma system affect injury-related morbidity and economic outcomes? A systematic review.创伤系统的实施是否会影响与损伤相关的发病率和经济结果?系统评价。
Emerg Med J. 2024 Jun 20;41(7):409-414. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2023-213782.
2
Association of Practitioner Interfacility Triage Performance With Outcomes for Severely Injured Patients With Fee-for-Service Medicare Insurance.从业者机构间分诊表现与按服务收费的医疗保险严重受伤患者结局的关联。
JAMA Surg. 2019 Dec 1;154(12):e193944. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.3944. Epub 2019 Dec 18.
3
Treatment Effect Estimation Using Nonlinear Two-Stage Instrumental Variable Estimators: Another Cautionary Note.
使用非线性两阶段工具变量估计器进行治疗效果估计:另一个警示说明。
Health Serv Res. 2016 Dec;51(6):2375-2394. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12463. Epub 2016 Feb 19.
4
Saving lives, limbs and livelihoods: considerations in restructuring a national trauma service.拯救生命、肢体与生计:国家创伤服务体系重组的考量因素
Ir J Med Sci. 2015 Sep;184(3):659-66. doi: 10.1007/s11845-014-1234-9. Epub 2014 Dec 7.