Gaelen Britton Stanford-Moore1, Gabrielle Cahill2, Ankit Raj3, Pacifique Irakoze4, Blake Alkire5, Mahmood F Bhutta6,7. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Program in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. WHO Collaborating Centre for Research in Surgical Care Delivery in LMICs, Mumbai, India. 4. Umwizero Polyclinic Hospital, Bujumbura, Burundi. 5. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK. 7. Department of Ear, Nose, and Throat, University Hospitals Sussex, West Sussex, UK.
Abstract
Objective: To better understand the impact of the otolaryngology-specific workforce on the burden of related diseases. Study Design: Retrospective analysis of existing workforce density data as compared with the incidence, mortality, and morbidity data for 4 otolaryngologic diseases. Setting: An overall 138 countries with known otolaryngology-head and neck surgery workforce and epidemiologic data. Methods: We obtained raw data on workforce estimates of ear, nose, and throat surgical specialists from the World Health Organization. Disease burdens for 4 conditions were estimated via 2 ratios, the mortality:incidence ratio (MIR) and YLD:incidence ratio (years lost to disability), as specified in the Global Burden of Disease database. These were correlated to country-specific otolaryngologist density data in univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Increased density of the ear, nose, and throat workforce correlated with better outcomes for otolaryngologic-treated surgical diseases. A 10% increase in otolaryngology workforce density was associated with a 0.27% reduction in YLD:incidence ratio for chronic otitis media, a 0.94% reduction in MIR for lip and oral cavity cancer, a 1.46% reduction in MIR for laryngeal cancer, and a 1.34% reduction in MIR for pharyngeal cancer (all P < .001)-an effect that remained after adjustment for health systems factors for all conditions but chronic otitis media. Conclusion: The density of the surgical workforce is assumed to affect disease outcomes, but ours is the first analysis to show that increased workforce density for a specific surgical specialty correlates with improved disease outcomes. While there is a consensus to increase access to health care providers, quantifying the effect on disease outcomes is an important metric for those performing health economics modeling, particularly where resources are limited.
Objective: To better understand the impact of the otolaryngology-specific workforce on the burden of related diseases. Study Design: Retrospective analysis of existing workforce density data as compared with the incidence, mortality, and morbidity data for 4 otolaryngologic diseases. Setting: An overall 138 countries with known otolaryngology-head and neck surgery workforce and epidemiologic data. Methods: We obtained raw data on workforce estimates of ear, nose, and throat surgical specialists from the World Health Organization. Disease burdens for 4 conditions were estimated via 2 ratios, the mortality:incidence ratio (MIR) and YLD:incidence ratio (years lost to disability), as specified in the Global Burden of Disease database. These were correlated to country-specific otolaryngologist density data in univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Increased density of the ear, nose, and throat workforce correlated with better outcomes for otolaryngologic-treated surgical diseases. A 10% increase in otolaryngology workforce density was associated with a 0.27% reduction in YLD:incidence ratio for chronic otitis media, a 0.94% reduction in MIR for lip and oral cavity cancer, a 1.46% reduction in MIR for laryngeal cancer, and a 1.34% reduction in MIR for pharyngeal cancer (all P < .001)-an effect that remained after adjustment for health systems factors for all conditions but chronic otitis media. Conclusion: The density of the surgical workforce is assumed to affect disease outcomes, but ours is the first analysis to show that increased workforce density for a specific surgical specialty correlates with improved disease outcomes. While there is a consensus to increase access to health care providers, quantifying the effect on disease outcomes is an important metric for those performing health economics modeling, particularly where resources are limited.
Authors: Swagoto Mukhopadhyay; Maria Punchak; Abbas Rattani; Ya-Ching Hung; James Dahm; Serena Faruque; Michael C Dewan; Sophie Peeters; Sonal Sachdev; Kee B Park Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Blake C Alkire; Nakul P Raykar; Mark G Shrime; Thomas G Weiser; Stephen W Bickler; John A Rose; Cameron T Nutt; Sarah L M Greenberg; Meera Kotagal; Johanna N Riesel; Micaela Esquivel; Tarsicio Uribe-Leitz; George Molina; Nobhojit Roy; John G Meara; Paul E Farmer Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Hsern Ern Tan; Peter Luke Santa Maria; Robert Henry Eikelboom; Keith Surendran Anandacoomaraswamy; Marcus David Atlas Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Fatemeh Asadzadeh Vostakolaei; Henrike E Karim-Kos; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Otto Visser; André L M Verbeek; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: John G Meara; Andrew J M Leather; Lars Hagander; Blake C Alkire; Nivaldo Alonso; Emmanuel A Ameh; Stephen W Bickler; Lesong Conteh; Anna J Dare; Justine Davies; Eunice Dérivois Mérisier; Shenaaz El-Halabi; Paul E Farmer; Atul Gawande; Rowan Gillies; Sarah L M Greenberg; Caris E Grimes; Russell L Gruen; Edna Adan Ismail; Thaim Buya Kamara; Chris Lavy; Ganbold Lundeg; Nyengo C Mkandawire; Nakul P Raykar; Johanna N Riesel; Edgar Rodas; John Rose; Nobhojit Roy; Mark G Shrime; Richard Sullivan; Stéphane Verguet; David Watters; Thomas G Weiser; Iain H Wilson; Gavin Yamey; Winnie Yip Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-04-26 Impact factor: 79.321