Unknown Causes of Death in Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Deaths from an unknown cause are difficult to adjudicate and oncologic studies of comparative effectiveness often demonstrate inconsistencies in incorporating these deaths and competing events (eg, heart disease and stroke) in their analyses. In this study, we identify cancer patients most at risk for death of an unknown cause. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based study used cancer registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1992-2015). The absolute rate of unknown causes of death (COD) cases stratified by sex, marital status, race, treatment, and cancer site were calculated and a multivariable logistic regression model was applied to obtain adjusted odds ratios with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Out of 7,154,779 cancer patients across 22 cancer subtypes extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, 3,448,927 died during follow-up and 276,068 (7.4%) of these deaths were from unknown causes. Patients with an unknown COD had a shorter mean survival time compared with patients with known COD (36.3 vs 65.7 mo, P < 0.001). The contribution of unknown COD to total mortality was highest in patients with more indolent cancers (eg, prostate [12.7%], thyroid [12.3%], breast [10.7%]) and longer follow-up (eg, >5 to 10 y). One, 3, and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) calculations including unknown COD were significantly decreased compared with CSS estimates excluding cancer patients with unknown COD. CONCLUSION: Of the patients, 7.4% died of unknown causes during follow-up and the proportion of death was higher with longer follow-up and among more indolent cancers. The attribution of high percentages of unknown COD to cancer or non-cancer causes could impact population-based cancer registry studies or clinical trial outcomes with respect to measures involving CSS and mortality.

The Effect of Medical Home on Shared Decision-Making for Caregivers of Children with Emotional, Developmental, or Behavioral Health Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Known as the "pinnacle of patient-centered care," shared decision-making (SDM) is the process that enables and encourages the health care provider, the patient, and/or their caregiver (parent or guardian) to participate collaboratively in medical decisions. Prior research indicates that children with emotional, developmental, or behavioral health conditions (EDB) are less likely to attain SDM than children with other special health care needs (SHCNs). This study investigates whether the presence of a medical home reduces disparities in SDM among children with EDB when compared to children with other SHCNs and the general pediatric population. METHODS: Using the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health, we conducted weighted descriptive statistics to investigate the prevalence of medical home and SDM for children with (1) EDB, (2) other SHCNs, and (3) no SHCNs. We then employed a nested multivariate logistic regression model to examine whether the presence of a medical home reduced the disparity between children with EDB and their counterparts. RESULTS: Nationally, 21% of children with EDB (n = 647,274), 14.0% of children with other SHCNs (n = 1,086,068), and 13% of children with no SHCNs (n = 883,969) did not attain caregiver-reported SDM in medical care. In each of the health condition groups, the presence of a medical home significantly improved the odds of SDM (p < 0.001). Presence of a medical home also reduced the disparities observed in caregiver-reported SDM among children with EDB as compared to those with other SHCNs and no SHCNs. DISCUSSION: Ongoing investment in medical homes may reduce disparities in SDM experienced by children with EDB.

Characteristics Associated With New Patient Appointment No-Shows at an Academic Ophthalmology Department in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify patient and appointment characteristics associated with no-shows to new patient appointments at a US academic ophthalmology department. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: This was a study of all adult patients with new patient appointments scheduled with an attending ophthalmologist at Penn State Eye Center between January 1st and December 31st of 2019. A multiple logistic regression model was used to assess the association between characteristics and no-show status. RESULTS: Of 4,628 patients, 759 (16.4%) were no-shows. From the multiple logistic regression model, characteristics associated with no-shows were age (Odds Ratio (OR) for 18-40 years vs. >60 years: 3.41, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.57, 4.51, p <0.001 and OR for 41-60 years vs. >60 years: 2.14, 95% CI 1.67, 2.74, p<0.001), median household income (OR for <$35,667 vs. >$59,445: 1.59, 95% CI 1.08, 2.34, p<0.001), insurance (OR for None vs. Medicare: 6.92, 95% CI 4.41, 10.86, p<0.001 and OR for Medicaid vs. Medicare: 1.54, 95% CI 1.18, 2.01, p=0.002), race (OR for Black vs. White: 2.62, 95% CI 2.00, 3.43, p<0.001 and OR for Other vs. White: 2.02, 95% CI 1.58, 2.59, p<0.001), and commute distance (OR for 5-10 mi vs. ≤5 mi: 1.73, 95% CI 1.17, 2.55, p=0.006). Appointments with longer lead times and scheduled with glaucoma or retina specialists were also significantly associated with greater no-shows. CONCLUSION: Certain patient and appointment characteristics were associated with no-show status. These findings may assist in the development of targeted interventions at the patient, practice, and health system levels to improve appointment attendance.

Sex Differences in Academic Rank, Scholarly Productivity, National Institutes of Health Funding, and Industry Ties Among Academic Cornea Specialists in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study analyzed sex differences among cornea specialists with regards to academic rank, scholarly productivity, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and industry partnerships. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: This was a study of faculty at 113 US academic programs. Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were collected from institutional websites between January and March 2019. H-indices and m-quotients were collected from the Scopus database. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services databases were queried for data on NIH funding and industry partnerships. RESULTS: Of the 440 cornea specialists identified, 131 (29.8%) were female. The proportions of females and males at each academic rank (assistant 69.5% vs 41.8%; associate 17.6% vs 21.0%; full professor 13.0% vs 37.2%) were not significant after adjusting for career duration (P = .083, .459, and .113, respectively). Females had significantly lower median h-indices (4.0 [interquartile range {IQR} 7.0] vs 11.0 [IQR 17.0], P < .001) and shorter median career duration (12.0 [IQR 11.0] vs. 25.0 [IQR 20.0] years, P < .001) than males but similar median m-quotients (0.5 [IQR 0.8] vs 0.5 [IQR 0.8], P = 1.00). Sex differences in h-indices were not seen at each academic rank or career duration interval. Among NIH-funded investigators, the median grant funding was $1.6M (IQR $2.2M) for females and $1.2M (IQR $4.6M, P = .853) for males. Overall, 25.5% of females and 58.6% of males (P = .600) had industry partnerships. CONCLUSION: Sex differences within academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to a smaller proportion of females with advanced career duration.

Sex Disparities in Productivity among Oculoplastic Surgeons.

Purpose The aim of the study is to investigate sex differences in academic rank, publication productivity, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding among oculoplastic surgeons and whether there is an association between American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) membership and scholarly output. Methods Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were obtained from institutional websites of 113 U.S. ophthalmology programs. H-indices and m-quotients were obtained from the Scopus database. NIH funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool. Results Of the 272 surgeons, 74 (30.2%) were females. When adjusted for career duration, differences in female to male proportions were only significant at the rank of assistant professor (assistant: 74.3 vs. 48.5%, p = 0.047; associate: 18.9 vs. 24.6%, p = 0.243; full professor: 13.0 vs. 37.2%, p = 0.114). Women had a shorter career duration than men [10.0 (interquartile range or IQR 12.0) vs. 21.0 (IQR 20.0) years; p < 0.001] and a lower h-index [4.0 (IQR 5.0) vs. 7.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001], but similar m-quotients [0.4 (IQR 0.4) vs. 0.4 (IQR 0.4); p = 0.9890]. Among ASOPRS members, females had a lower h-index than males [5.0 (IQR 6.0) vs. 9.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001] due to career length differences. No difference in productivity between sexes was found among non-ASOPRS members. ASOPRS members from both sexes had higher scholarly output than their non-ASOPRS counterparts. Just 2.7% (2/74) of females compared with 5.3% (9/171) of males received NIH funding ( p = 0.681). Conclusion Sex differences in academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to the smaller proportion of females with long career durations. ASOPRS membership may confer opportunities for increased scholarly output.