Literature DB >> 11707483

Potential for bias in waiting time studies: events between enrolment and admission.

B Sobolev1, P Brown, D Zelt.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the effect of exclusion of data on delays in scheduling operations in calculating difference in admission rates between two enrolment periods.
DESIGN: A prospective cohort study; outcome measure-waiting time for elective admission; study variables-enrolment periods, before 31 March 1997 and after that date; the time of scheduling delay; gender; age; urgency, and type of surgery.
SETTING: An acute care hospital in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 1173 consecutive cases accepted for elective vascular surgery between 1 July 1994 and 31 March 1999. MAIN
RESULTS: Before adjustment for scheduling delays, a 20% lower admission rate was associated with period 2, rate ratio (RR) = 0.8 (95% confidence intervals (CI)= 0.7, 0.9). The difference between the periods became only marginally significant after the adjustment, RR = 0.9 (95% CI=0.8, 1.0). No difference between the periods was found when admission rates were compared before a delay occurred, RR = 0.9 (95% CI=0.8, 1.1). In delayed patients, those enrolled in period 1 and 2 had, respectively, a 40% and a 60% lower admission rate than the period 1 patients admitted without scheduling delays, RR = 0.6 (95% CI=0.4, 0.8) for period 1 and RR = 0.4 (95%CI=0.3, 0.5) for period 2.
CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence that patients experiencing a delay in scheduling operation have a lower admission rate after the event. Thus, potential for bias exists when between group comparison of waiting time is done without adjustment for an intermediate event that may occur before elective admission.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11707483      PMCID: PMC1731810          DOI: 10.1136/jech.55.12.891

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  13 in total

1.  First steps in analysing NHS waiting times: avoiding the 'stationary and closed population' fallacy.

Authors:  P W Armstrong
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-08-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Bias inherent in retrospective waiting-time studies: experience from a vascular surgery waiting list.

Authors:  B Sobolev; P Brown; D Zelt; S Shortt
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-06-27       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Variation in time spent on the waiting list for elective vascular surgery: a case study.

Authors:  B Sobolev; P Brown; D Zelt
Journal:  Clin Invest Med       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 0.825

4.  Potential biases do not affect results of waiting time study.

Authors:  B Dowling
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-07-04

Review 5.  Time to event (survival) data.

Authors:  D G Altman; J M Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-15

6.  Unrepresentative, invalid and misleading: are waiting times for elective admission wrongly calculated?

Authors:  P W Armstrong
Journal:  J Epidemiol Biostat       Date:  2000

7.  A bivariate parametric model for survival and intermediate event times.

Authors:  L D Epstein; A Muñoz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Cox regression models for intermediate events, with discharge from hospital as an example.

Authors:  Y Wax; N Galai; V Carey; E Simchen
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Plotting summary predictions in multistate survival models: probabilities of relapse and death in remission for bone marrow transplantation patients.

Authors:  J P Klein; N Keiding; E A Copelan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  A survey of provider experiences and perceptions of preferential access to cardiovascular care in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  D A Alter; A S Basinski; C D Naylor
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1998-10-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.