RESUMEN
Introduction Gastric cancer, a significant public health concern, remains one of the most challenging malignancies to treat effectively. In the United States, survival rates for gastric cancer have historically been low, partly due to late-stage diagnosis and disparities in access to care. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to address such disparities by expanding healthcare coverage and improving access to preventive and early treatment services. Objective This study aims to determine the causal effects of the ACA's implementation on gastric cancer survival rates, focusing on a comparative analysis between two distinct U.S. states: New Jersey, which fully embraced ACA provisions, and Georgia, which has not adopted the policy, as of 2023. Methods In this retrospective analysis, we utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) registry to assess the impact of the ACA on cancer-specific survival (CSS) among gastric cancer patients. The study spanned the period from 2000 to 2020, divided into pre-ACA (2000-2013) and post-ACA (2016-2020) periods, with a two-year washout (2013-2015). We compared Georgia (a non-expansion state) to New Jersey (an expansion state since 2014) using a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) approach. We adjusted for patient demographics, income, metropolitan status, disease stage, and treatment modalities. Results Among 25,061 patients, 58.7% were in New Jersey (14,711), while 41.3% were in Georgia (10,350). The pre-ACA period included 18,878 patients (40.0% in Georgia and 60.0% in New Jersey), and 6,183 patients were in the post-ACA period (45.2% in Georgia and 54.8% in New Jersey). The post-ACA period was associated with a 20% reduction in mortality hazard among gastric cancer patients, irrespective of the state of residence (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73-0.88). Patients who were residents of New Jersey experienced a 12% reduction in mortality hazard compared to those who resided in Georgia in the post-ACA period (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-0.99). Other factors linked to improved survival outcomes included surgery (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.28-0.34) and female gender (OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.76-0.91). Conclusion The study underscores the ACA's potential positive impact on CSS among gastric cancer patients, emphasizing the importance of healthcare policy interventions in improving patient outcomes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary educational intervention on the knowledge of nursing practitioners regarding perinatal and infant oral health (PIOH) care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a preexperimental study conducted among nursing practitioners in Lagos, Nigeria. Participants received hands-on training and didactic lectures, which included dental caries etiology and risk factors; oral hygiene and dietary education; teething and its management; dental trauma and its prevention; nonnutritive habits; screening, referrals, and counseling; and fluoride varnish application. Knowledge of the trainees was assessed using pre- and posttest questionnaires. Level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Overall, 110 nurses participated in the study with a mean age of 40.9 ± 10.8 years; 106 (96.4%) were females. Approximately 88% of the participants had not received formal training on PIOH. The baseline mean scores of the participants' knowledge on oral hygiene, teething, trauma, caries, and oral habits were 4.31 ± 1.9, 9.84 ± 2.6, 2.59 ± 1.7, 4.24 ± 1.8, and 1.45 ± 0.6, respectively; this increased significantly (P < 0.001) following the educational intervention with posttest mean scores as 7.58 ± 0.8, 11.79 ± 1.3, 4.34 ± 1.9, 6.19 ± 1.8, and 1.82 ± 0.4 and six-month evaluation scores as 6.21 ± 1.8,7 10.27 ± 3.1, 4.39 ± 1.5, 5.91 ± 1.8, and 1.79 ± 0.5, respectively. Overall posttest (31.4 ± 4.2) and six-month (28.6 ± 6.2) knowledge scores were significantly higher than the pretest values (22.4 ± 4.8, P < 0.001). At the six-month post-intervention survey, 84% of the nurses reported inclusion of PIOH education in their routine general health education sessions. CONCLUSION: There was a positive impact of the educational intervention as evidenced by an increase in the knowledge of the nurses on PIOH care and the inclusion of PIOH education in their general health education. A slight decline between posttest and six-month evaluation scores indicates a need for continuous education and evaluation.