Travel Burden to American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association-Approved Cleft and Craniofacial Teams: A Geospatial Analysis.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Plastic and reconstructive surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-25 DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011410
Madyson I Brown, Boris K Kuyeb, Laura I Galarza, Katherine C Benedict, Ian C Hoppe, Laura S Humphries
{"title":"Travel Burden to American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association-Approved Cleft and Craniofacial Teams: A Geospatial Analysis.","authors":"Madyson I Brown, Boris K Kuyeb, Laura I Galarza, Katherine C Benedict, Ian C Hoppe, Laura S Humphries","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000011410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the existence of cleft and craniofacial teams approved by the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association (ACPA), access to multidisciplinary team-based care remains challenging for patients from rural areas, leading to disparities in care. The authors investigated the geospatial relationship between US counties and ACPA-approved centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The geographic location of all ACPA-approved cleft and craniofacial centers in the United States was identified. Distance between individual US counties ( n = 3142) and their closest ACPA-approved team was determined. Counties were mapped based on distance to nearest cleft or craniofacial team. Distance calculations were combined with US Census data to model the number of children served by each team and economic characteristics of families served. These relationships were analyzed using independent t tests and analysis of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 40% of US counties did not have access to an ACPA-approved craniofacial team within a 100-mile radius ( n = 1267) versus 29% for cleft teams ( n = 909). Over 90% of counties greater than 100 miles from a craniofacial team had a population less than 7500 ( n = 1150). Of the counties more than 100 miles from a cleft team, 64% had a child poverty rate greater than the national average ( n = 579). Counties with the highest birth rate and more than 100 miles to travel to an ACPA team are in the Mountain West.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the time-sensitive nature of operative intervention and access to multidisciplinary care, the lack of equitable distribution in certified cleft and craniofacial teams is concerning. Centers may better serve families from distant areas by establishing satellite clinics, conducting telehealth visits, and training local primary care providers in referral practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":20128,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","volume":" ","pages":"140-149"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011410","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the existence of cleft and craniofacial teams approved by the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association (ACPA), access to multidisciplinary team-based care remains challenging for patients from rural areas, leading to disparities in care. The authors investigated the geospatial relationship between US counties and ACPA-approved centers.

Methods: The geographic location of all ACPA-approved cleft and craniofacial centers in the United States was identified. Distance between individual US counties ( n = 3142) and their closest ACPA-approved team was determined. Counties were mapped based on distance to nearest cleft or craniofacial team. Distance calculations were combined with US Census data to model the number of children served by each team and economic characteristics of families served. These relationships were analyzed using independent t tests and analysis of variance.

Results: Over 40% of US counties did not have access to an ACPA-approved craniofacial team within a 100-mile radius ( n = 1267) versus 29% for cleft teams ( n = 909). Over 90% of counties greater than 100 miles from a craniofacial team had a population less than 7500 ( n = 1150). Of the counties more than 100 miles from a cleft team, 64% had a child poverty rate greater than the national average ( n = 579). Counties with the highest birth rate and more than 100 miles to travel to an ACPA team are in the Mountain West.

Conclusions: Given the time-sensitive nature of operative intervention and access to multidisciplinary care, the lack of equitable distribution in certified cleft and craniofacial teams is concerning. Centers may better serve families from distant areas by establishing satellite clinics, conducting telehealth visits, and training local primary care providers in referral practices.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"前往 ACPA 批准的裂隙和颅面团队的旅行负担:地理空间分析"。
背景:尽管美国腭裂和颅面协会(ACPA)批准成立了腭裂和颅面团队,但对于农村地区的患者来说,获得以多学科团队为基础的医疗服务仍然具有挑战性,这导致了医疗服务的不均衡。我们调查了美国各县与 ACPA 批准的中心之间的地理空间关系:方法:确定了美国所有经 ACPA 批准的裂隙和颅面中心的地理位置。确定美国各县(n=3,142)与其最近的 ACPA 批准团队之间的距离。根据与最近的裂隙或颅颌面团队的距离绘制各县地图。将距离计算结果与美国人口普查数据相结合,对每个团队服务的儿童人数和服务家庭的经济特征进行建模。使用独立 t 检验和方差分析对这些关系进行了分析:超过 40% 的美国县在 100 英里半径范围内没有获得 ACPA 批准的颅面团队(n=1267),而裂隙团队的这一比例为 29%(n=909)。在距离颅面团队超过 100 英里的县中,超过 90% 的人口距离裂隙团队 100 英里,64% 的儿童贫困率高于全国平均水平(n=579)。出生率最高且距离ACPA团队>100英里的县位于西部山区:鉴于手术干预和多学科护理的时效性,认证裂隙和颅面团队的分布不均令人担忧。各中心可通过建立卫星诊所、远程医疗访问和培训当地初级保健提供者转诊实践来更好地为偏远地区的家庭提供服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
13.90%
发文量
1436
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: For more than 70 years Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® has been the one consistently excellent reference for every specialist who uses plastic surgery techniques or works in conjunction with a plastic surgeon. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® , the official journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, is a benefit of Society membership, and is also available on a subscription basis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® brings subscribers up-to-the-minute reports on the latest techniques and follow-up for all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including breast reconstruction, experimental studies, maxillofacial reconstruction, hand and microsurgery, burn repair, cosmetic surgery, as well as news on medicolegal issues. The cosmetic section provides expanded coverage on new procedures and techniques and offers more cosmetic-specific content than any other journal. All subscribers enjoy full access to the Journal''s website, which features broadcast quality videos of reconstructive and cosmetic procedures, podcasts, comprehensive article archives dating to 1946, and additional benefits offered by the newly-redesigned website.
期刊最新文献
Subfascial Mini-Muscle Release Dual-Plane Technique: A Modified Procedure for Breast Augmentation. Reported Prices for High-Volume Hand Surgery in the Era of Price Transparency: Implications for Future Policy Iterations. The L-Shaped Zygomatic Reduction with Oblique or Vertical Resection: Which One Is the Optimal Choice? Heterotopic Ossification Is Associated with Painful Neuromas in Transtibial Amputees Undergoing Surgical Treatment of Symptomatic Neuromas. Pregnancy Termination Policy and Cleft Lip and Palate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1