首页 > 最新文献

JAMA Health Forum最新文献

英文 中文
A Novel Approach to Overseeing the Clinical Application of Generative AI. 监督生成式人工智能临床应用的新方法。
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.6947
Bakul Patel, David Blumenthal
{"title":"A Novel Approach to Overseeing the Clinical Application of Generative AI.","authors":"Bakul Patel, David Blumenthal","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.6947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.6947","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e256947"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147367141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Funding Nurse Recruitment While Defunding Nurse Educators. 资助护士招聘,同时撤资护士教育工作者。
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0075
Joshua Barrett, Zoey Kernodle
{"title":"Funding Nurse Recruitment While Defunding Nurse Educators.","authors":"Joshua Barrett, Zoey Kernodle","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0075","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e260075"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147488584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
JAMA Health Forum. JAMA健康论坛。
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.6021
{"title":"JAMA Health Forum.","authors":"","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.6021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.6021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e256021"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147367146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Prenatal Syphilis Screening Mandates and Maternal Syphilis Case Detection. 产前梅毒筛查任务和孕产妇梅毒病例检测。
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0123
Sarah E Baum, Leila Agha, Nicolas A Menzies, Jessica Cohen

Importance: Rates of congenital syphilis in the US have surged over the past decade, despite most states having long-standing mandates requiring clinicians to offer syphilis screening early in pregnancy. Gaps in screening coverage remain, and first-trimester screening alone may miss cases. Several professional bodies now recommend repeat screening in the third trimester and at delivery. Evidence on the impact of expanded prenatal syphilis screening mandates on case detection is limited.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of expanding prenatal syphilis screening mandates on syphilis case detection during pregnancy.

Design, setting, and participants: Birth certificate data from 33 US states between 2012 and 2022 were analyzed using a staggered difference-in-differences design. Maternal syphilis case detection in 4 states that enacted mandates for third-trimester and delivery screening (Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Michigan) were compared with 29 control states without such mandates during this period. The new mandates required all pregnant people be offered third-trimester screening. Three of the states further required that individuals at high risk of syphilis infection be offered screening again at delivery, and 1 state required universal delivery screening. To ascertain whether expanded mandates were associated with changes in screening coverage, inpatient discharge records from 1 mandate expansion state (Georgia) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from December 2024 to September 2025.

Exposures: Passage of a universal syphilis screening mandate in the third trimester and a high-risk or universal mandate at delivery between 2012 and 2022.

Main outcomes and measures: Maternal syphilis case detection (cases per 100 000 live births) and the share of deliveries receiving syphilis screening.

Results: The study sample included 16.3 million live births and 20 961 reported syphilis cases between 2012 and 2022 in 4 mandate expansion states and 29 control states. Expanded screening mandates were associated with a 26% (95% CI, 3-53) increase in maternal syphilis case detection in the first quarter after enactment. The increase in case detection attenuated thereafter and was no longer significant within 1 year (11%; 95% CI, -17 to 48; P = .48).

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, expanded prenatal syphilis screening mandates may improve syphilis case detection in the near-term but are unlikely to have sustained impact without complementary efforts, such as those that facilitate clinician adherence and ensure patient access to and completion of treatment.

重要性:在过去的十年里,美国先天性梅毒的发病率激增,尽管大多数州长期以来都要求临床医生在怀孕早期提供梅毒筛查。筛查覆盖率的差距仍然存在,仅在妊娠早期进行筛查可能漏诊。一些专业机构现在建议在妊娠晚期和分娩时进行重复筛查。关于扩大产前梅毒筛查对病例发现的影响的证据有限。目的:评价扩大产前梅毒筛查任务对妊娠期梅毒病例检测的效果。设计、设置和参与者:使用交错差异设计分析了2012年至2022年美国33个州的出生证明数据。在4个颁布了妊娠晚期和分娩筛查规定的州(亚利桑那州、佐治亚州、路易斯安那州和密歇根州),将其产妇梅毒病例检出率与29个没有这一规定的对照州进行比较。新规定要求所有孕妇都要接受妊娠晚期筛查。其中3个州进一步要求在分娩时对梅毒感染高危人群再次进行筛查,1个州要求普遍进行分娩筛查。为了确定扩大的授权是否与筛查覆盖率的变化有关,分析了1个扩大授权的州(乔治亚州)的住院出院记录。数据分析时间为2024年12月至2025年9月。暴露:通过了在妊娠晚期普遍进行梅毒筛查的规定,以及在2012年至2022年期间在分娩时进行高风险或普遍筛查的规定。主要结果和措施:孕产妇梅毒病例检出率(每10万例活产病例 万例)和接受梅毒筛查的分娩比例。结果:研究样本包括2012年至2022年期间4个授权扩张州和29个对照州的1630万活产婴儿和20961例报告梅毒病例。扩大筛查任务与颁布后第一季度孕产妇梅毒病例检出率增加26% (95% CI, 3-53)相关。此后病例检出率的增加逐渐减弱,并在1年内不再显著(11%;95% CI, -17至48;P = .48)。结论和相关性:在本研究中,扩大产前梅毒筛查任务可能会在短期内提高梅毒病例检出率,但如果没有辅助努力,例如促进临床医生依从性和确保患者获得和完成治疗,则不太可能产生持续影响。
{"title":"Prenatal Syphilis Screening Mandates and Maternal Syphilis Case Detection.","authors":"Sarah E Baum, Leila Agha, Nicolas A Menzies, Jessica Cohen","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0123","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0123","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Rates of congenital syphilis in the US have surged over the past decade, despite most states having long-standing mandates requiring clinicians to offer syphilis screening early in pregnancy. Gaps in screening coverage remain, and first-trimester screening alone may miss cases. Several professional bodies now recommend repeat screening in the third trimester and at delivery. Evidence on the impact of expanded prenatal syphilis screening mandates on case detection is limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of expanding prenatal syphilis screening mandates on syphilis case detection during pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Birth certificate data from 33 US states between 2012 and 2022 were analyzed using a staggered difference-in-differences design. Maternal syphilis case detection in 4 states that enacted mandates for third-trimester and delivery screening (Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Michigan) were compared with 29 control states without such mandates during this period. The new mandates required all pregnant people be offered third-trimester screening. Three of the states further required that individuals at high risk of syphilis infection be offered screening again at delivery, and 1 state required universal delivery screening. To ascertain whether expanded mandates were associated with changes in screening coverage, inpatient discharge records from 1 mandate expansion state (Georgia) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from December 2024 to September 2025.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Passage of a universal syphilis screening mandate in the third trimester and a high-risk or universal mandate at delivery between 2012 and 2022.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Maternal syphilis case detection (cases per 100 000 live births) and the share of deliveries receiving syphilis screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study sample included 16.3 million live births and 20 961 reported syphilis cases between 2012 and 2022 in 4 mandate expansion states and 29 control states. Expanded screening mandates were associated with a 26% (95% CI, 3-53) increase in maternal syphilis case detection in the first quarter after enactment. The increase in case detection attenuated thereafter and was no longer significant within 1 year (11%; 95% CI, -17 to 48; P = .48).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this study, expanded prenatal syphilis screening mandates may improve syphilis case detection in the near-term but are unlikely to have sustained impact without complementary efforts, such as those that facilitate clinician adherence and ensure patient access to and completion of treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e260123"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13005160/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147488547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Racial Disparities in Food Insecurity for High- and Low-Income Households. 高低收入家庭粮食不安全的种族差异。
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.6935
Cordelia Kwon, Yifan Liu, Deidra C Crews, Boeun Kim, Elizabeth A Stuart, Laura J Samuel
{"title":"Racial Disparities in Food Insecurity for High- and Low-Income Households.","authors":"Cordelia Kwon, Yifan Liu, Deidra C Crews, Boeun Kim, Elizabeth A Stuart, Laura J Samuel","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.6935","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.6935","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e256935"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12966917/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147367100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Trump-Era Health Coverage Changes-What Will We Know and When? 特朗普时代的医疗保险将发生变化——我们将知道什么以及何时知道?
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0767
Adrianna McIntyre, Rachel Swindle, Benjamin D Sommers
{"title":"Trump-Era Health Coverage Changes-What Will We Know and When?","authors":"Adrianna McIntyre, Rachel Swindle, Benjamin D Sommers","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0767","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e260767"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147357059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Shooting-Free Days as a New Metric of Success in Reducing Firearm Violence. 无枪击日是成功减少枪支暴力的新指标。
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0078
Charles C Branas, Isbah Plumber, Riley Bennett, Olivia Landes, Sonali Rajan

Importance: Many US cities track firearm violence with annual homicide counts, which may not capture prevention gains, nonfatal injury trends, and stretches of peace. Metrics that quantify days without shootings provide an opportunity to communicate resilience and guide action. To provide a fuller picture, we introduce 4 novel metrics-shooting-free days (SFDs), shooting death-free days (SDFDs), consecutive shooting-free days (CSFDs), and multiple shooting-free days (MSFDs)-that, to our knowledge, have not previously been calculated across major US cities.

Objectives: To introduce, compute, and compare the 4 novel metrics across the 10 largest US cities from 2015 through 2024 and to test temporal trends.

Design, setting, and participants: Repeated cross-sectional, time-series analyses of daily gun violence incidents measured in 10 US cities with populations exceeding 1 million using Gun Violence Archive data to construct city-day observations from all fatal and nonfatal shooting incidents recorded between January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2024. Linear regressions were used to estimate annual trends. Data were analyzed from June 2025 through January 2026.

Exposures: Calendar year and city, operationalized as city-year panels derived from daily counts of persons shot (killed or injured).

Main outcomes and measures: SFDs are defined as days per year with no shooting incidents; SDFDs, days with no shooting deaths; CSFDs, maximum number of consecutive days per year with no shooting incidents; and MSFDs, days with fewer than 2 people shot. Outcomes were computed per city per year and calculating the mean across years.

Results: Of the 10 cities, Chicago had the lowest means (1.6 SFDs, 86.9 SDFDs, 0.6 CSFD, and 9.6 MSFDs per year) whereas San Diego had the highest (291.5 SFDs, 337.6 SDFDs, 24.2 CSFDs, and 347.3 MSFDs). A pronounced pullback occurred from 2019 through 2021. Phoenix and Dallas-Fort Worth had significant declines in all 4 metrics. Overall trends were significantly downward: -4.79 SFDs per year (P < .05), -4.50 SDFDs per year (P < .05), -0.30 CSFDs per year (P < .05), and -8.37 MSFDs per year (P < .01). Jacksonville, was the only city to show a significantly improved metric, in MSFDs (0.84 days per year; P < .05).

Conclusions and relevance: These novel metrics highlight periods of success and safety rather than focusing on negative outcomes. Metrics varied widely, worsened overall during the study decade, and highlighted cities with policies and practices that could be replicated. Incorporating shooting-free metrics into public dashboards can motivate communities, sharpen accountability, and guide interventions in US cities.

重要性:美国许多城市用年度杀人数量来追踪枪支暴力,这可能无法反映预防成果、非致命伤害趋势和和平程度。量化无枪击天数的指标为沟通韧性和指导行动提供了机会。为了提供更全面的情况,我们引入了4个新的指标——无射击天数(SFDs)、无射击死亡天数(sdfd)、连续无射击天数(csfd)和多次无射击天数(msfd)——据我们所知,这些指标此前尚未在美国主要城市进行过计算。目的:介绍、计算和比较2015年至2024年美国10个最大城市的4个新指标,并测试时间趋势。设计、环境和参与者:使用枪支暴力档案数据,对美国10个人口超过100万的城市每天发生的枪支暴力事件进行重复横断面、时间序列分析,从2015年1月1日至2024年12月31日期间记录的所有致命和非致命枪击事件中构建城市日观察结果。线性回归用于估计年趋势。研究人员分析了从2025年6月到2026年1月的数据。曝光:日历年和城市,根据每日被枪杀(死亡或受伤)的人数统计,以城市年面板的形式运作。主要结果和衡量标准:SFDs定义为每年没有枪击事件的天数;sdfd,没有枪击死亡的日子;公务员每年连续无枪击事件的最多日数;和msfd,少于2人被枪杀的日子。每年计算每个城市的结果,并计算历年平均值。结果:在10个城市中,芝加哥的平均值最低(每年1.6个SFDs, 86.9个sdfd, 0.6个CSFD和9.6个msfd),而圣地亚哥的平均值最高(291.5个SFDs, 337.6个sdfd, 24.2个CSFD和347.3个msfd)。从2019年到2021年出现了明显的回调。凤凰城和达拉斯-沃斯堡在所有4项指标上都有显著下降。总体趋势显著下降:每年-4.79次SFDs (P结论和相关性:这些新的指标强调了成功和安全的时期,而不是关注负面结果。指标差异很大,在研究的十年中总体上有所恶化,并突出了政策和做法可以复制的城市。将无枪击指标纳入公共仪表板可以激励社区,加强问责制,并指导美国城市的干预措施。
{"title":"Shooting-Free Days as a New Metric of Success in Reducing Firearm Violence.","authors":"Charles C Branas, Isbah Plumber, Riley Bennett, Olivia Landes, Sonali Rajan","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0078","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0078","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Many US cities track firearm violence with annual homicide counts, which may not capture prevention gains, nonfatal injury trends, and stretches of peace. Metrics that quantify days without shootings provide an opportunity to communicate resilience and guide action. To provide a fuller picture, we introduce 4 novel metrics-shooting-free days (SFDs), shooting death-free days (SDFDs), consecutive shooting-free days (CSFDs), and multiple shooting-free days (MSFDs)-that, to our knowledge, have not previously been calculated across major US cities.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To introduce, compute, and compare the 4 novel metrics across the 10 largest US cities from 2015 through 2024 and to test temporal trends.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Repeated cross-sectional, time-series analyses of daily gun violence incidents measured in 10 US cities with populations exceeding 1 million using Gun Violence Archive data to construct city-day observations from all fatal and nonfatal shooting incidents recorded between January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2024. Linear regressions were used to estimate annual trends. Data were analyzed from June 2025 through January 2026.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Calendar year and city, operationalized as city-year panels derived from daily counts of persons shot (killed or injured).</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>SFDs are defined as days per year with no shooting incidents; SDFDs, days with no shooting deaths; CSFDs, maximum number of consecutive days per year with no shooting incidents; and MSFDs, days with fewer than 2 people shot. Outcomes were computed per city per year and calculating the mean across years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 10 cities, Chicago had the lowest means (1.6 SFDs, 86.9 SDFDs, 0.6 CSFD, and 9.6 MSFDs per year) whereas San Diego had the highest (291.5 SFDs, 337.6 SDFDs, 24.2 CSFDs, and 347.3 MSFDs). A pronounced pullback occurred from 2019 through 2021. Phoenix and Dallas-Fort Worth had significant declines in all 4 metrics. Overall trends were significantly downward: -4.79 SFDs per year (P < .05), -4.50 SDFDs per year (P < .05), -0.30 CSFDs per year (P < .05), and -8.37 MSFDs per year (P < .01). Jacksonville, was the only city to show a significantly improved metric, in MSFDs (0.84 days per year; P < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>These novel metrics highlight periods of success and safety rather than focusing on negative outcomes. Metrics varied widely, worsened overall during the study decade, and highlighted cities with policies and practices that could be replicated. Incorporating shooting-free metrics into public dashboards can motivate communities, sharpen accountability, and guide interventions in US cities.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e260078"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12988442/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147445840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Utah's Experiment With AI-Driven Prescription Renewals. 犹他州的人工智能处方更新试验。
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.1001
Michelle M Mello
{"title":"Utah's Experiment With AI-Driven Prescription Renewals.","authors":"Michelle M Mello","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.1001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.1001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e261001"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147488512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Income-Based Inequalities in Health System Performance in the US and South Korea. 美国和韩国卫生系统绩效中基于收入的不平等。
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0136
Sungchul Park, Karen Eggleston, Young Kyung Do, David M Cutler
<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Income is a key social determinant of health, yet its influence on health system performance may differ across settings. Cross-national comparisons can help identify where income-related disparities are most pronounced and inform targeted policy responses; the US and South Korea are 2 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with high poverty rates but different health systems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare health system performance and income-related inequalities in health system performance between the US and South Korea.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This repeated cross-sectional study including nationally representative samples of noninstitutionalized adults from the US and South Korea used data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS; 2010-2019), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; 2009-2018), Korean Health Panel Study (KHPS; 2010-2019), and Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES; 2010-2019). Data were analyzed from March 2024 to March 2025.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Annual household income, categorized into country-specific deciles.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The main outcomes were 30 indicators across 6 domains: health care spending, health care utilization, access to care, health status, behavioral risk factors, and clinical outcomes. To evaluate income-related inequalities in outcomes, adjusted mean values across income deciles were estimated using regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample included 224 168 US adults (female: 51.1% in MEPS, 51.7% in NHANES) and 179 452 South Korean adults (female: 52.4% in KHPS, 56.1% in KNHANES). Mean (SD) age was 46.6 (18.0) years in MEPS, 46.5 (17.4) years in NHANES, 47.7 (16.2) years in KHPS, and 50.5 (17.1) years in KNHANES. US adults had higher mean total health care spending (lowest income decile: $7852 [95% CI, $7456-$8247]; highest decile: $6510 [95% CI, $6218-$6802]) than South Korean adults (lowest decile: $1184 [95% CI, $1105-$1263]; highest decile: $1025 [95% CI, $950-$1100]) despite similar levels of self-reported good health. A 1-decile increase in income was associated with a difference of -$142 (95% CI, -$179 to -$104) in total health care spending in the US compared with -$33 (95% CI, -$41 to -$25) in South Korea. A 1-decile increase in income was associated with an increase of 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3-2.5) percentage points (pp) in self-reported good health in the US compared with 1.5 (95% CI, 1.4-1.6) pp in South Korea. Income-related disparities in preventive service use were also larger in the US, ranging from 0.2 (95% CI, 0.2-0.2) pp for cervical cancer screening to 4.0 (95% CI, 3.9-4.1) pp for dental checkups. In South Korea, disparities ranged from 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4-0.8) pp for dental checkups to 2.0 (1.8-2.2) pp for routine checkups. Similar income gradients were observed in acces
重要性:收入是健康的一个关键社会决定因素,但其对卫生系统绩效的影响可能因环境而异。跨国比较有助于确定与收入有关的差距最明显的地方,并为有针对性的政策对策提供信息;美国和韩国是经济合作与发展组织的两个成员国,贫困率很高,但卫生系统不同。目的:比较美国和韩国卫生系统绩效和与收入相关的卫生系统绩效不平等。设计、环境和参与者:这项重复的横断面研究包括来自美国和韩国的非机构成年人的全国代表性样本,使用的数据来自医疗支出小组调查(MEPS; 2010-2019)、国家健康和营养检查调查(NHANES; 2009-2018)、韩国健康小组研究(KHPS; 2010-2019)和韩国国家健康和营养检查调查(KNHANES; 2010-2019)。数据分析时间为2024年3月至2025年3月。风险敞口:家庭年收入,按具体国家的十分位数分类。主要结果和措施:主要结果包括6个领域的30个指标:医疗保健支出、医疗保健利用、获得医疗保健、健康状况、行为风险因素和临床结果。为了评估结果中与收入相关的不平等,使用回归模型估计了收入十分位数的调整平均值。结果:样本包括224 168名美国成年人(女性:MEPS 51.1%, NHANES 51.7%)和179 452名韩国成年人(女性:KHPS 52.4%, KNHANES 56.1%)。MEPS组的平均(SD)年龄为46.6(18.0)岁,NHANES组为46.5(17.4)岁,KHPS组为47.7(16.2)岁,KNHANES组为50.5(17.1)岁。美国成年人的平均医疗保健总支出(最低收入十分位数:7852美元[95% CI, 7456- 8247美元];最高收入十分位数:6510美元[95% CI, 6218- 6802美元])高于韩国成年人(最低收入十分位数:1184美元[95% CI, 1105- 1263美元];最高收入十分位数:1025美元[95% CI, 950- 1100美元]),尽管他们自我报告的健康状况相似。收入每增加十分之一,美国的医疗保健总支出就会出现- 142美元(95%可信区间,- 179美元至- 104美元)的差异,而韩国的这一差异为- 33美元(95%可信区间,- 41美元至- 25美元)。在美国,收入每增加十分之一,自我报告的健康状况就会增加2.4个百分点(95%可信区间,2.3-2.5),而在韩国,这一数字为1.5个百分点(95%可信区间,1.4-1.6)。在美国,与收入相关的预防服务使用差异也更大,从宫颈癌筛查的0.2 (95% CI, 0.2-0.2) pp到牙科检查的4.0 (95% CI, 3.9-4.1) pp不等。在韩国,差距从牙科检查的0.6 (95% CI, 0.4-0.8)到常规检查的2.0(1.8-2.2)不等。在获得护理和行为风险因素方面也观察到类似的收入梯度。两国的临床结果差异不大。结论和相关性:在这项横断面研究中,美国和韩国的收入与卫生系统绩效的差异有关,美国的收入差异更大。研究结果表明,需要结构性和系统性的政策努力来解决基于收入的卫生不平等问题,特别是在美国。
{"title":"Income-Based Inequalities in Health System Performance in the US and South Korea.","authors":"Sungchul Park, Karen Eggleston, Young Kyung Do, David M Cutler","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0136","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0136","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Importance: &lt;/strong&gt;Income is a key social determinant of health, yet its influence on health system performance may differ across settings. Cross-national comparisons can help identify where income-related disparities are most pronounced and inform targeted policy responses; the US and South Korea are 2 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with high poverty rates but different health systems.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;To compare health system performance and income-related inequalities in health system performance between the US and South Korea.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design, setting, and participants: &lt;/strong&gt;This repeated cross-sectional study including nationally representative samples of noninstitutionalized adults from the US and South Korea used data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS; 2010-2019), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; 2009-2018), Korean Health Panel Study (KHPS; 2010-2019), and Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES; 2010-2019). Data were analyzed from March 2024 to March 2025.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exposures: &lt;/strong&gt;Annual household income, categorized into country-specific deciles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Main outcomes and measures: &lt;/strong&gt;The main outcomes were 30 indicators across 6 domains: health care spending, health care utilization, access to care, health status, behavioral risk factors, and clinical outcomes. To evaluate income-related inequalities in outcomes, adjusted mean values across income deciles were estimated using regression models.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;The sample included 224 168 US adults (female: 51.1% in MEPS, 51.7% in NHANES) and 179 452 South Korean adults (female: 52.4% in KHPS, 56.1% in KNHANES). Mean (SD) age was 46.6 (18.0) years in MEPS, 46.5 (17.4) years in NHANES, 47.7 (16.2) years in KHPS, and 50.5 (17.1) years in KNHANES. US adults had higher mean total health care spending (lowest income decile: $7852 [95% CI, $7456-$8247]; highest decile: $6510 [95% CI, $6218-$6802]) than South Korean adults (lowest decile: $1184 [95% CI, $1105-$1263]; highest decile: $1025 [95% CI, $950-$1100]) despite similar levels of self-reported good health. A 1-decile increase in income was associated with a difference of -$142 (95% CI, -$179 to -$104) in total health care spending in the US compared with -$33 (95% CI, -$41 to -$25) in South Korea. A 1-decile increase in income was associated with an increase of 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3-2.5) percentage points (pp) in self-reported good health in the US compared with 1.5 (95% CI, 1.4-1.6) pp in South Korea. Income-related disparities in preventive service use were also larger in the US, ranging from 0.2 (95% CI, 0.2-0.2) pp for cervical cancer screening to 4.0 (95% CI, 3.9-4.1) pp for dental checkups. In South Korea, disparities ranged from 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4-0.8) pp for dental checkups to 2.0 (1.8-2.2) pp for routine checkups. Similar income gradients were observed in acces","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e260136"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13005164/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147488519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The 4 Pillars of Childhood Vaccine Policy-1 Year Later. 一年后儿童疫苗政策的四大支柱。
IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Pub Date : 2026-03-06 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0924
Joshua Sharfstein, Sarah Despres
{"title":"The 4 Pillars of Childhood Vaccine Policy-1 Year Later.","authors":"Joshua Sharfstein, Sarah Despres","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0924","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.0924","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 3","pages":"e260924"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147437724","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
JAMA Health Forum
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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