Evaluating rural health outcomes: A methodological approach using population-level data.

Background: The sustainability of rural surgical and obstetrical facilities depends on their efficacy and quality of care, which are difficult to measure in a rural context. In an evaluation of rural practice, it is often the case that the only comparators are larger referral facilities, for which facility-level comparisons are difficult due to differences in population demographics, acuity of patients, and services offered. This publication outlines these limitations and highlights a best-practice approach to making facility-level comparisons using population-level data, risk stratification, tests of noninferiority, and Firth logistic regression analysis. This includes an investigation of minimum sample-size requirements through Monte Carlo power analysis in the context of low-acuity rural surgical care. Methods: Monte Carlo power analysis was used to estimate the minimum sample size required to achieve a power of 0.8 for both logistic regression and Firth logistic regression models that compare the proportion of surgical adverse events against facility type, among other confounders. We provide guidelines for the implementation of a recommended methodology that uses risk stratification, Firth penalized logistic regression, and tests of noninferiority. Results: We illustrate limitations in facility-level comparison of surgical quality among patients undergoing one of four index procedures including hernia repair, colonoscopy, appendectomy, and cesarean delivery. We identified minimum sample sizes for comparison of each index procedure that fluctuate depending on the level of risk stratification used. Conclusion: The availability of administrative data can provide an adequate sample size to allow for facility-level comparisons in surgical quality, at the rural level and elsewhere. When they are made appropriately, these comparisons can be used to evaluate the efficacy of general practitioners and nurse practitioners in performing low-acuity procedures.

Retrospective Cohort Study on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Pregnancy Outcomes for Women Living With HIV in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: For pregnant women living with HIV (WLWH), engagement in care is crucial to maternal health and reducing the risk of perinatal transmission. To date, there have been no studies in Canada examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pregnant WLWH. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study assessing the impact of the pandemic on perinatal outcomes for pregnant WLWH using data from the Perinatal HIV Surveillance Program in British Columbia, Canada. We compared maternal characteristics, pregnancy outcomes, and clinical indicators related to engagement with care between a prepandemic (January 2017-March 2020) and pandemic cohort (March 2020-December 2022). We investigated preterm birth rates with explanatory variables using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The prepandemic cohort (n = 87) had a significantly (P < 0.05) lower gestational age at the first antenatal encounter (9.0 vs 11.8) and lower rates of preterm births compared with the pandemic cohort (n = 56; 15% vs 37%). Adjusted odds of preterm birth increased with the presence of substance use in pregnancy (aOR = 10.45, 95% confidence interval: 2.19 to 49.94) in WLWH. There were 2 cases of perinatal transmission of HIV in the pandemic cohort, whereas the prepandemic cohort had none. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic had pronounced effects on pregnant WLWH and their infants in British Columbia including higher rates of preterm birth and higher gestational age at the first antenatal encounter. The nonstatistically significant increase in perinatal transmission rates is of high clinical importance.

Perinatal Outcomes at Rural Hospitals That Participated in the Rural Surgical and Obstetrical Networks (RSON) of British Columbia (2016-2021).

BACKGROUND: The goal of the Rural Surgical and Obstetrical Networks (RSON) of British Columbia was to support safe and appropriate surgery, operative birth, and perinatal care closer to home for rural communities. Family physicians with enhanced obstetrical and/or surgical skills provide cesarean delivery and family practice anesthetists manage anesthesia for labour pain and operative births at RSON-supported hospitals, with the involvement of a local specialist at one site. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to: (1) compare perinatal outcomes at hospitals participating in the RSON initiative with outcomes at referral hospitals and (2) examine temporal changes in the proportion of childbearing people who resided in RSON communities and gave birth locally. METHODS: Poisson regression analysis was used to model the effect of hospital type (RSON vs. referral) on perinatal outcomes. We restricted the analysis to singleton births and controlled for differences in maternal characteristics, obstetric history, and pregnancy complications. RESULTS: Childbearing people who gave birth at RSON-supported hospitals (n = 3498) had a 10% lower incidence of adverse maternal-newborn outcomes compared to those who gave birth at referral hospitals (n = 14 772), after controlling for referral bias. We found a small increase (3.2 %) in the proportion of local births over the study period. CONCLUSION: Findings provide evidence that childbearing people can safely give birth at smaller rural hospitals in British Columbia and that investments in rural hospitals contribute to service stability. Stabilizing local birth services in rural communities benefits the whole region because it reduces surgical overload in regional referral centres.

The rural tax: comprehensive out-of-pocket costs associated with patient travel in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: A significant concern for rural patients is the cost of travel outside of their community for specialist and diagnostic care. Often, these costs are transferred to patients and their families, who also experience stress associated with traveling for care. We sought to examine the rural patient experience by (1) estimating and categorizing the various out of pocket costs associated with traveling for healthcare and (2) describing and measuring patient stress and other experiences associated with traveling to seek care, specifically in relation to household income. METHODS: We have designed and administered an online, retrospective, cross-sectional survey seeking to estimate the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and personal experiences of rural patients associated with traveling to access health care in British Columbia. Respondents were surveyed across five categories: Distance Traveled and Transportation Costs, Accommodation Costs, Co-Traveler Costs, Lost Wages, and Patient Stress. Bivariate relationships between respondent household income and other numerical findings were investigated using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: On average, costs for respondents were $856 and $674 for transport and accommodation, respectively. Strong relationships were found to exist between the distance traveled and total transport costs, as well as between a patient's stress and their household income. Patient perspectives obtained from this survey expressed several related issues, including the physical and psychosocial impacts of travel as well as delayed or diminished care seeking. CONCLUSIONS: These key findings highlight the existing inequities between rural and urban patient access to health care and how these inequities are exacerbated by a patient's overall travel-distance and financial status. This study can directly inform policy related efforts towards mitigating the rural-urban gap in access to health care.