Faculty Opinions recommendation of Association of early initiation of dialysis with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: A propensity score weighted analysis of the United States Renal Data System.

Author(s):  
Jeff Kraut
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 1050-1056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amarpali Brar ◽  
Dimitre G. Stefanov ◽  
Rahul M. Jindal ◽  
Moro O. Salifu ◽  
Madhu Joshi ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 1179173X1882526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baksun Sung

Background: Numerous studies have reported that shorter time to first cigarette (TTFC) is linked to elevated risk for smoking-related morbidity. However, little is known about the influence of early TTFC on self-reported health among current smokers. Hence, the objective of this study was to examine the association between TTFC and self-reported health among US adult smokers. Methods: Data came from the 2012-2013 National Adult Tobacco Survey (NATS). Current smokers aged 18 years and older (N = 3323) were categorized into 2 groups based on TTFC: ≤ 5 minutes (n = 1066) and >5 minutes (n = 2257). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control selection bias. Results: After adjusting for sociodemographic and smoking behavior factors, current smokers with early TTFC had higher odds for poor health in comparison with current smokers with late TTFC in the prematching (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.31-2.08) and postmatching (AOR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.22-2.09) samples. Conclusions: In conclusion, smokers with early TTFC were associated with increased risk of poor health in the United States. To reduce early TTFC, elaborate efforts are needed to educate people about harms of early TTFC and benefits of stopping early TTFC.


2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (9) ◽  
pp. 359
Author(s):  
Tarun Jacob Bathini ◽  
Wisit Cheungpasitporn ◽  
Charat Thongprayoon ◽  
Ronpichai Chokesuwattanaskul ◽  
Patompong Ungprasert ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taoran Liu ◽  
Zonglin He ◽  
Jian Huang ◽  
Ni Yan ◽  
Qian Chen ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesTo investigate the differences in vaccine hesitancy and preference of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines between two countries, viz. China and the United States (US).MethodA cross-national survey was conducted in both China and the US, and discrete choice experiments as well as Likert scales were utilized to assess vaccine preference and the underlying factors contributing to the vaccination acceptance. A propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to enable a direct comparison between the two countries.ResultsA total of 9,077 (5,375 and 3,702, respectively, from China and the US) respondents have completed the survey. After propensity score matching, over 82.0% respondents from China positively accept the COVID-19 vaccination, while 72.2% respondents form the US positively accept it. Specifically, only 31.9% of Chinese respondents were recommended by a doctor to have COVID-19 vaccination, while more than half of the US respondents were recommended by a doctor (50.2%), local health board (59.4%), or friends and families (64.8%). The discrete choice experiments revealed that respondents from the US attached the greatest importance to the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines (44.41%), followed by the cost of vaccination (29.57%), whereas those from China held a different viewpoint that the cost of vaccination covers the largest proportion in their trade-off (30.66%), and efficacy ranked as the second most important attribute (26.34%). Also, respondents from China tend to concerned much more about the adverse effect of vaccination (19.68% vs 6.12%) and have lower perceived severity of being infected with COVID-19.ConclusionWhile the overall acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in both countries are high, underpinned distinctions between countries are observed. Owing to the differences in COVID-19 incidence rates, cultural backgrounds, and the availability of specific COVID-19 vaccines in two countries, the vaccine rollout strategies should be nation-dependent.


Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
James L Crooks ◽  
Wayne Cascio ◽  
Madelyn Percy ◽  
Jeanette Reyes ◽  
Lucas Neas ◽  
...  

Introduction: Extreme weather events such as dust storms are predicted to become more frequent as the global climate warms through the 21st century. Studies of Asian, Saharan, Arabian, and Australian dust storms have found associations with cardiovascular and total non-accidental mortality and hospitalizations for stroke. However, the only population-level epidemiological work on dust storms in the United States was focused on a single small metropolitan area (Spokane, WA), and it is uncertain whether its null results are representative of the country as a whole. Hypothesis: Dust storms in the United States are associated with daily cardiovascular mortality. Methods: Dust storm incidence data (N=141), including date and approximate location, as well as meteorological station observations, were taken from the U.S. National Weather Service. County-level mortality data for the years 1993-2005 were acquired from the National Center for Health Statistics. Ambient particulate matter monitor concentrations were obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inference was performed used conditional logistic regression models under a case-crossover design while accounting for the nonlinear effect of temperature. Results: We found a 9.5% increase in cardiovascular mortality at a two-day lag (95% CI: [0.31%,19.5%], p = 0.042). The results were robust to adjusting for heat waves and ambient particulate matter concentrations. Analysis of storms occurring only on days with <0.1 inches of precipitation strengthened these results and in addition yielded a mean daily increase of 4.0% across lags 0-5 (95% CI: [0.07%,20.8%], p = 0.046). In Arizona, the U.S. state with the largest number of storms, we observed a 13.0% increase at a three-day lag (CI: [0.40%,27.1%], p = 0.043). Conclusions: Dust storms in the U.S. are associated with increases in lagged cardiovascular mortality. This has implications for the development of public health advisories and suggests that further public health interventions may be needed. Disclaimer: This work does not represent official U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document