Topmiller Michael, Shaak Kyle, Mallow Peter J, Kieber-Emmons Autumn M
Health Landscape, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA.
Fam Med Community Health. 2020 Jan 29;8(1):e000293. doi: 10.1136/fmch-2019-000293. eCollection 2020.
Using adherence to diabetes management guidelines as a case study, this paper applied a novel geospatial hot-spot and cold-spot methodology to identify priority counties to target interventions. Data for this study were obtained from the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare, the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey and the University of Wisconsin County Health Rankings. A geospatial approach was used to identify four tiers of priority counties for diabetes preventive and management services: diabetes management cold-spots, clusters of counties with low rates of adherence to diabetes preventive and management services (Tier D); Medicare spending hot-spots, clusters of counties with high rates of spending and were diabetes management cold-spots (Tier C); preventable hospitalisation hot-spots, clusters of counties with high rates of spending and are diabetes management cold-spots (Tier B); and counties that were located in a diabetes management cold-spot cluster, preventable hospitalisation hot-spot cluster and Medicare spending hot-spot cluster (Tier A). The four tiers of priority counties were geographically concentrated in Texas and Oklahoma, the Southeast and central Appalachia. Of these tiers, there were 62 Tier A counties. Rates of preventable hospitalisations and Medicare spending were higher in Tier A counties compared with national averages. These same counties had much lower rates of adherence to diabetes preventive and management services. The novel geospatial mapping approach used in this study may allow practitioners and policy makers to target interventions in areas that have the highest need. Further refinement of this approach is necessary before making policy recommendations.
以遵循糖尿病管理指南为案例研究,本文应用了一种新颖的地理空间热点和冷点方法来确定干预措施的重点县。本研究的数据来自达特茅斯医疗保健地图集、美国人口普查局的美国社区调查以及威斯康星大学县健康排名。采用地理空间方法确定了糖尿病预防和管理服务的四个重点县层级:糖尿病管理冷点,即糖尿病预防和管理服务依从率低的县集群(D级);医疗保险支出热点,即支出率高且为糖尿病管理冷点的县集群(C级);可预防住院热点,即支出率高且为糖尿病管理冷点的县集群(B级);以及位于糖尿病管理冷点集群、可预防住院热点集群和医疗保险支出热点集群中的县(A级)。这四个重点县层级在地理上集中在得克萨斯州和俄克拉何马州、东南部以及阿巴拉契亚中部地区。在这些层级中,有62个A级县。A级县的可预防住院率和医疗保险支出率高于全国平均水平。这些县的糖尿病预防和管理服务依从率则低得多。本研究中使用的新颖地理空间映射方法可能使从业者和政策制定者能够在需求最高的地区进行干预。在提出政策建议之前,有必要进一步完善这种方法。