原住民、少数族群中风发生率:澳洲原住民与托雷斯海峡岛民中风研究方法回顾

Anna H. Balabanski, Lee Nedkoff, Angela Dos Santos, Alex Brown, Timothy J. Kleinig, Amanda G. Thrift, Judith M. Katzenellenbogen
{"title":"原住民、少数族群中风发生率:澳洲原住民与托雷斯海峡岛民中风研究方法回顾","authors":"Anna H. Balabanski, Lee Nedkoff, Angela Dos Santos, Alex Brown, Timothy J. Kleinig, Amanda G. Thrift, Judith M. Katzenellenbogen","doi":"10.3389/fstro.2023.1270136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Declining worldwide or national stroke incidence rates are not always mirrored in disadvantaged, minority populations. Logistical barriers exist for effective measurement of incidence in minority populations; such data are required to identify targets for culturally appropriate interventions. In this comparative review, we aimed to examine whether “gold-standard” methodologies of stroke incidence studies are most effective for minority populations. We compared three studies of stroke incidence in Aboriginal Australians, each using different methodologies of case ascertainment. In Study 1, “gold-standard” population-based methods were used, while in Study 2, a retrospective hospital-based cohort design was utilized, and in Study 3, whole-of-population linked hospital and mortality data was employed. Study 1 captured both in-hospital and out-of-hospital stroke events but had a small sample size for Aboriginal patients. Study 2 provided a larger sample size while still allowing for clinical and radiological subtyping of stroke but was subject to selection bias and was limited to hospitalized cases. Study 3 had a large sample size and allowed for subgroup analysis, though lacked clinical adjudication and had large proportions of ‘undetermined stroke'. Despite diagnostic imprecision, we recommend a paradigm shift in measuring stroke incidence in Indigenous, minority populations, favoring the use of whole-of-population data linkage including non-hospitalized stroke deaths, over resource-intensive prospective methods, where more suitable for the target population.","PeriodicalId":73108,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in stroke","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stroke incidence in Indigenous, minority populations: a review of methods for studying stroke in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians\",\"authors\":\"Anna H. Balabanski, Lee Nedkoff, Angela Dos Santos, Alex Brown, Timothy J. Kleinig, Amanda G. Thrift, Judith M. Katzenellenbogen\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fstro.2023.1270136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Declining worldwide or national stroke incidence rates are not always mirrored in disadvantaged, minority populations. Logistical barriers exist for effective measurement of incidence in minority populations; such data are required to identify targets for culturally appropriate interventions. In this comparative review, we aimed to examine whether “gold-standard” methodologies of stroke incidence studies are most effective for minority populations. We compared three studies of stroke incidence in Aboriginal Australians, each using different methodologies of case ascertainment. In Study 1, “gold-standard” population-based methods were used, while in Study 2, a retrospective hospital-based cohort design was utilized, and in Study 3, whole-of-population linked hospital and mortality data was employed. Study 1 captured both in-hospital and out-of-hospital stroke events but had a small sample size for Aboriginal patients. Study 2 provided a larger sample size while still allowing for clinical and radiological subtyping of stroke but was subject to selection bias and was limited to hospitalized cases. Study 3 had a large sample size and allowed for subgroup analysis, though lacked clinical adjudication and had large proportions of ‘undetermined stroke'. Despite diagnostic imprecision, we recommend a paradigm shift in measuring stroke incidence in Indigenous, minority populations, favoring the use of whole-of-population data linkage including non-hospitalized stroke deaths, over resource-intensive prospective methods, where more suitable for the target population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in stroke\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in stroke\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fstro.2023.1270136\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in stroke","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fstro.2023.1270136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

世界范围或国家中风发病率的下降并不总是反映在弱势群体中。在有效衡量少数民族人口发病率方面存在后勤障碍;需要这些数据来确定适合文化的干预措施的目标。在这篇比较综述中,我们旨在检验卒中发病率研究的“金标准”方法是否对少数民族人群最有效。我们比较了澳大利亚原住民中风发病率的三项研究,每项研究都使用不同的病例确定方法。在研究1中,采用了“金标准”的基于人群的方法,而在研究2中,采用了回顾性的基于医院的队列设计,在研究3中,采用了与整个人群相关的医院和死亡率数据。研究1捕获了院内和院外卒中事件,但土著患者的样本量较小。研究2提供了更大的样本量,同时仍然允许中风的临床和放射学亚型,但存在选择偏倚,并且仅限于住院病例。研究3样本量大,允许进行亚组分析,但缺乏临床判定,且“未确定中风”的比例很大。尽管诊断不精确,但我们建议在测量土著、少数民族人群卒中发病率方面进行范式转变,更倾向于使用包括非住院卒中死亡在内的全人群数据联系,而不是资源密集型前瞻性方法,因为后者更适合目标人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Stroke incidence in Indigenous, minority populations: a review of methods for studying stroke in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians
Declining worldwide or national stroke incidence rates are not always mirrored in disadvantaged, minority populations. Logistical barriers exist for effective measurement of incidence in minority populations; such data are required to identify targets for culturally appropriate interventions. In this comparative review, we aimed to examine whether “gold-standard” methodologies of stroke incidence studies are most effective for minority populations. We compared three studies of stroke incidence in Aboriginal Australians, each using different methodologies of case ascertainment. In Study 1, “gold-standard” population-based methods were used, while in Study 2, a retrospective hospital-based cohort design was utilized, and in Study 3, whole-of-population linked hospital and mortality data was employed. Study 1 captured both in-hospital and out-of-hospital stroke events but had a small sample size for Aboriginal patients. Study 2 provided a larger sample size while still allowing for clinical and radiological subtyping of stroke but was subject to selection bias and was limited to hospitalized cases. Study 3 had a large sample size and allowed for subgroup analysis, though lacked clinical adjudication and had large proportions of ‘undetermined stroke'. Despite diagnostic imprecision, we recommend a paradigm shift in measuring stroke incidence in Indigenous, minority populations, favoring the use of whole-of-population data linkage including non-hospitalized stroke deaths, over resource-intensive prospective methods, where more suitable for the target population.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The important role of community organizations in stroke recovery and reintegration The coproduction of a multilevel personal narrative intervention for people with aphasia in a community communication support group—A pilot study Is thrombolysis beneficial in elderly patients with minor ischemic stroke? Outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion and initial mild deficits The NLRP3 inflammasome in ischemic stroke
×
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