JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
-
Comparative Study
The comparative retention of National Health Service Corps and other rural physicians. Results of a 9-year follow-up study.
To contrast the retention of physicians serving National Health Service Corps (NHSC) Scholarship Program obligations in rural settings to that of non-NHSC physicians working in the same or similar practices, and to identify promising retention-enhancing strategies. ⋯ When compared to non-NHSC physicians working in comparable rural settings, the retention of rural NHSC physicians is seen to be poor and only partially explained by fixed physician, practice, or community variables. Long-term retention of NHSC providers is now receiving much needed attention at the federal level.
-
To determine the extent to which the elderly have been excluded from trials of drug therapies used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction, to identify factors associated with such exclusions, and to explore the relationship between the exclusion of elderly and the representation of women. ⋯ Age-based exclusions are frequently used in clinical trials of medications used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Such exclusions limit the ability to generalize study findings to the patient population that experiences the most morbidity and mortality from acute myocardial infarction.
-
Increasingly stringent fiscal restrictions on the scope of medical services available to patients have resulted in calls for explicit health care priority setting. Several commentators have called for the application of decision-analytic principles to such efforts, which would assign services priority based on the extent to which they produce preferred health outcomes. ⋯ Both of the key elements entailed by decision-analytic approaches to priority setting--estimation of outcomes and assignment of values to those outcomes--are vulnerable to charges of discrimination, primarily because both the medical outcomes expected in disabled individuals and the values they place on those outcomes may differ from the general public. Priority-setting efforts must proceed carefully to avoid the appearance (and reality) of discrimination.