Literature DB >> 22437621

Very low birth weight hospital volume and mortality: an instrumental variables approach.

George L Wehby1, Fred Ullrich, Yang Xie.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of very low birth weight (VLBW) hospital volume effects on in-hospital mortality have used standard risk-adjusted models that only account for observable confounders but not for self-selection bias due to unobservable confounders.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of hospital volume of VLBW infants on in-hospital mortality while explicitly accounting for unobservable confounders and self-selection bias using an instrumental variables (IV) model.
METHODS: The sample includes 4553 VLBW infants born in 63 hospitals in 2000-2004 in New Jersey. We use IV analysis with the differences between the patient's distances to the nearest low (<50 VLBW infants annually), moderate (51-100 infants annually), and high (>100 VLBW infants annually)-volume hospitals as instruments. We evaluate several volume measures and adjusted for observable infant and hospital characteristics.
RESULTS: We find beneficial volume effects on survival that are significantly underestimated in classic risk-adjusted models, under which low and moderate volumes compared with high volumes increase mortality odds by 1.8 and 1.88 times, respectively (risk ratios of 1.4 and 1.5, respectively). However, using the IV approach, we find that low and moderate volumes increase mortality odds by 5.42 and 3.51 times, respectively (risk ratios of 2.76 and 2.21, respectively). These findings suggest unobservable confounders that increase the selection of infants at a greater mortality risk into higher-volume hospitals.
CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for unobserved self-selection bias reveals large survival benefits from delivering and treating VLBW infants at high-volume hospitals. This supports policies regionalizing the delivery and care for pregnancies at risk for VLBW at high-volume hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22437621      PMCID: PMC3388172          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824e32cf

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  14 in total

1.  Hospital volume and neonatal mortality among very low birth weight infants.

Authors:  Dorothee B Bartels; David Wypij; Paul Wenzlaff; Olaf Dammann; Christian F Poets
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Overcoming bias in estimating the volume-outcome relationship.

Authors:  Alexander C Tsai; Mark Votruba; John F P Bridges; Randall D Cebul
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 3.  Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables.

Authors:  J P Newhouse; M McClellan
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 21.981

4.  The effect of neonatal intensive care level and hospital volume on mortality of very low birth weight infants.

Authors:  Judith H Chung; Ciaran S Phibbs; W John Boscardin; Gerald F Kominski; Alexander N Ortega; Jack Needleman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Annual summary of vital statistics--2002.

Authors:  Elizabeth Arias; Marian F MacDorman; Donna M Strobino; Bernard Guyer
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  The effects of patient volume and level of care at the hospital of birth on neonatal mortality.

Authors:  C S Phibbs; J M Bronstein; E Buxton; R H Phibbs
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-10-02       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Was breast conserving surgery underutilized for early stage breast cancer? Instrumental variables evidence for stage II patients from Iowa.

Authors:  John M Brooks; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Shane D Scott; Shari S Chen-Hardee
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Indirect vs direct hospital quality indicators for very low-birth-weight infants.

Authors:  Jeannette A Rogowski; Jeffrey D Horbar; Douglas O Staiger; Michael Kenny; Joseph Carpenter; Jeffrey Geppert
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-14       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Level and volume of neonatal intensive care and mortality in very-low-birth-weight infants.

Authors:  Ciaran S Phibbs; Laurence C Baker; Aaron B Caughey; Beate Danielsen; Susan K Schmitt; Roderic H Phibbs
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-05-24       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using instrumental variables.

Authors:  M McClellan; B J McNeil; J P Newhouse
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-09-21       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  3 in total

1.  Achieving minimum caseload requirements--an analysis of hospital discharge data from 2005-2011.

Authors:  Dirk Peschke; Ulrike Nimptsch; Thomas Mansky
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Outcomes of deliveries by family physicians or obstetricians: a population-based cohort study using an instrumental variable.

Authors:  Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Richard M Cullen; Alvin Simms; Shabnam Asghari; Joan Crane; Peizhong Peter Wang; Marshall Godwin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Optimal surgeon and hospital volume thresholds to reduce mortality and length of stay for CABG.

Authors:  Ying-Yi Chou; Juey-Jen Hwang; Yu-Chi Tung
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.