Global, regional, and national quality of care of gallbladder and biliary tract cancer: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 1990–2017

Author:

Khanali JavadORCID,Malekpour Mohammad-RezaORCID,Azangou-Khyavy MohammadrezaORCID,Saeedi Moghaddam SaharORCID,Rezaei NegarORCID,Kolahi Ali-AsgharORCID,Abbasi-Kangevari MohsenORCID,Mohammadi EsmaeilORCID,Rezaei NazilaORCID,Yoosefi MoeinORCID,Keykhaei MohammadORCID,Farzi YosefORCID,Gorgani FatemeORCID,Larijani BagherORCID,Farzadfar FarshadORCID

Abstract

Abstract Background To improve health outcomes to their maximum level, defining indices to measure healthcare quality and accessibility is crucial. In this study, we implemented the novel Quality of Care Index (QCI) to estimate the quality and accessibility of care for patients with gallbladder and biliary tract cancer (GBBTC) in 195 countries, 21 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) regions, Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintiles, and sex groups. Method This cross-sectional study extracted estimates on GBBTC burden from the GBD 2017, which presents population-based estimates on GBBTC burden for higher than 15-year-old patients from 1990 to 2017. Four secondary indices indicating quality of care were chosen, comprising Mortality to incidence, Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) to prevalence, prevalence to incidence, and years of life lost (YLL) to years lived with disability (YLD) ratios. Then, the whole dataset was analyzed using Principal Component Analysis to combine the four indices and create a single all-inclusive measure named QCI. The QCI was scaled to the 0–100 range, with 100 indicating the best quality of care among countries. Gender Disparity Ratio (GDR) was defined as the female to male QCI ratio to show gender inequity throughout the regions and countries. Results Global QCI score for GBBTC was 33.5 in 2017, which has increased by 29% since 1990. There was a considerable gender disparity in favor of men (GDR = 0.74) in 2017, showing QCI has moved toward gender inequity since 1990 (GDR = 0.85). Quality of care followed a heterogeneous pattern among regions and countries and was positively correlated with the countries’ developmental status reflected in SDI (r = 0.7; CI 95%: 0.61–0.76; P value< 0.001). Accordingly, High-income North America (QCI = 72.4) had the highest QCI; whereas, Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa (QCI = 3) had the lowest QCI among regions. Patients aged 45 to 80 had lower QCI scores than younger and older adults. The highest QCI score was for the older than 95 age group (QCI = 54), and the lowest was for the 50–54 age group (QCI = 26.0). Conclusions QCI improved considerably from 1990 to 2017; however, it showed heterogeneous distribution and inequity between sex and age groups. In each regional context, plans from countries with the highest QCI and best gender equity should be disseminated and implemented in order to decrease the overall burden of GBBTC.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Reference50 articles.

1. Quality of care. [cited 2021 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/quality-of-care#tab=tab_1

2. Palmer K. Quality of care. Practitioner 1989;233:1223–4. [cited 2020 Dec 5] Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30212166/

3. Barber RM, Fullman N, Sorensen RJD, Bollyky T, McKee M, Nolte E, et al. Healthcare access and quality index based on mortality from causes amenable to personal health care in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2015: A novel analysis from the global burden of disease study 2015. Lancet

4. 2017 390:231-66. [cited 2020 Dec 5] Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28528753/

5. Hogan DR, Stevens GA, Hosseinpoor AR, Boerma T. Monitoring universal health coverage within the sustainable development goals: development and baseline data for an index of essential health services. Lancet Glob Heal; 2018 6:e152–68. [cited 2021 Oct 29] Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/article/S2214109X17304722/fulltext

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3