The Health and Libraries of Public Use Retrospective Study (HeLPURS).

BACKGROUND: Public libraries may promote health through literacy, education and social connections. OBJECTIVE: To conduct the first broad-based, quantitative exploration of health and public library patronage. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study. All 2925 adult patients at a general practice clinic living in a small north-eastern U.S. city were invited by mail to participate; 243 consented. Clinical variables from the medical records were combined with library usage variables from the public library patron database. The authors analysed how patient health characteristics were associated with library cardholding, average card use or recency of use. RESULTS: Approximately 72% of participants held a library card; 40% of these had used it within the last month. Library cardholding was not associated with patient characteristics. Higher average card use was associated with pregnancy, having youth at home and depression severity. Lack of recent library usage was associated with current smoking (P = 0.01) and drug use (P = 0.01). Among ever-smokers, moderate/high card use and card use within six months were both associated with over two times the odds of quitting smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Public libraries and health appear to intersect around substance abuse and depression-anxiety disorders. Moderate or higher use of public libraries is strongly associated with tobacco cessation.

The association between primary language spoken and all-cause mortality in critically ill patients.

PURPOSE: The study objective was to investigate the association between primary language spoken and all-cause mortality in critically ill patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cohort study on 48 581 patients 18 years or older who received critical care between 1997 and 2007 in 2 Boston hospitals. The exposure of interest was primary language spoken determined by the patient or family members who interacted with administrative staff during hospital registration. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Associations between language and mortality were estimated by bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models with inclusion of covariate terms thought to plausibly interact with both language and mortality. Adjustment included age, race, sex, Deyo-Charlson index, patient type (medical vs surgical), sepsis, creatinine, hematocrit, white blood count, and number of organs with acute failure. RESULTS: Validation showed that primary language spoken was highly accurate for a statement in the medical record noting the language spoken that matched the assigned language. Patients whose primary language spoken was not English had improved outcomes (odds ratio 30-day mortality, 0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.81; P < .001), relative to patients with English as the primary language spoken, fully adjusted. Similar significant associations are seen with death by days 90 and 365 as well as in-hospital mortality. The improved survival in patients with a non-English primary language spoken is not confounded by indicators of severity of disease and is independent of the specific language spoken and neighborhood poverty rate, a proxy for socioeconomic status. There are significant limitations inherent to large database studies that we have acknowledged and addressed with controlling for measured confounding and evaluation of effect modification. CONCLUSIONS: In a regional cohort, not speaking English as a primary language is associated with improved outcomes after critical care. Our observations may have clinical relevance and illustrate the intersection of several factors in critical illness outcome including severity of illness, comorbidity, and social and economic factors.

Relationship between neighborhood poverty rate and bloodstream infections in the critically ill.

BACKGROUND: Poverty is associated with increased risk of chronic illness, but its contribution to bloodstream infections is not well-defined. METHODS: We performed a multicenter observational study of 14,657 patients, aged 18 yrs or older, who received critical care and had blood cultures drawn between 1997 and 2007 in two hospitals in Boston, Massachusetts. Data sources included 1990 U.S. Census and hospital administrative data. Census tracts were used as the geographic units of analysis. The exposure of interest was neighborhood poverty rate categorized as <5%, 5%-10%, 10%-20%, 20%-40%, and >40%. Neighborhood poverty rate is the percentage of residents with income below the federal poverty line. The primary end point was bloodstream infection occurring 48 hrs before critical care initiation to 48 hrs after. Associations between neighborhood poverty rate and bloodstream infection were estimated by logistic regression models. Adjusted odds ratios were estimated by multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Two thousand four-hundred thirty-five patients had bloodstream infections. Neighborhood poverty rate was a strong predictor of risk of bloodstream infection, with a significant risk gradient across neighborhood poverty rate quintiles. After multivariable analysis, neighborhood poverty rate in the highest quintiles (20%-40% and >40%) were associated with a 26% and 49% increase in bloodstream infection risk, respectively, relative to patients with neighborhood poverty rate of <5%. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of our study design, increased neighborhood poverty rate, a proxy for decreased socioeconomic status, appears to be associated with risk of bloodstream infection among patients who receive critical care.

Neighborhood poverty rate and mortality in patients receiving critical care in the academic medical center setting.

BACKGROUND: Poverty is associated with increased risk of chronic illness but its contribution to critical care outcome is not well defined. METHODS: We performed a multicenter observational study of 38,917 patients, aged ≥ 18 years, who received critical care between 1997 and 2007. The patients were treated in two academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Data sources included 1990 US census and hospital administrative data. The exposure of interest was neighborhood poverty rate, categorized as < 5%, 5% to 10%, 10% to 20%, 20% to 40% and > 40%. Neighborhood poverty rate is the percentage of residents below the federal poverty line. Census tracts were used as the geographic units of analysis. Logistic regression examined death by days 30, 90, and 365 post-critical care initiation and in-hospital mortality. Adjusted ORs were estimated by multivariable logistic regression models. Sensitivity analysis was performed for 1-year postdischarge mortality among patients discharged to home. RESULTS: Following multivariable adjustment, neighborhood poverty rate was not associated with all-cause 30-day mortality: 5% to 10% OR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.98-1.14; P = .2); 10% to 20% OR, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.87-1.06; P = .5); 20% to 40% OR, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.96-1.22; P = .2); > 40% OR, 1.20 (95% CI, 0.90-1.60; P = .2); referent in each is < 5%. Similar nonsignificant associations were noted at 90-day and 365-day mortality post-critical care initiation and in-hospital mortality. Among patients discharged to home, neighborhood poverty rate was not associated with 1-year-postdischarge mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that there is no relationship between the neighborhood poverty rate and mortality up to 1 year following critical care at academic medical centers.