Madyson I Brown, Boris K Kuyeb, Laura I Galarza, Katherine C Benedict, Ian C Hoppe, Laura S Humphries
{"title":"\"前往 ACPA 批准的裂隙和颅面团队的旅行负担:地理空间分析\"。","authors":"Madyson I Brown, Boris K Kuyeb, Laura I Galarza, Katherine C Benedict, Ian C Hoppe, Laura S Humphries","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000011410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the existence of cleft and craniofacial teams approved by the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association (ACPA), access to multidisciplinary team-based care remains challenging for patients from rural areas, leading to disparities in care. The authors investigated the geospatial relationship between US counties and ACPA-approved centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The geographic location of all ACPA-approved cleft and craniofacial centers in the United States was identified. Distance between individual US counties ( n = 3142) and their closest ACPA-approved team was determined. Counties were mapped based on distance to nearest cleft or craniofacial team. Distance calculations were combined with US Census data to model the number of children served by each team and economic characteristics of families served. These relationships were analyzed using independent t tests and analysis of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 40% of US counties did not have access to an ACPA-approved craniofacial team within a 100-mile radius ( n = 1267) versus 29% for cleft teams ( n = 909). Over 90% of counties greater than 100 miles from a craniofacial team had a population less than 7500 ( n = 1150). Of the counties more than 100 miles from a cleft team, 64% had a child poverty rate greater than the national average ( n = 579). Counties with the highest birth rate and more than 100 miles to travel to an ACPA team are in the Mountain West.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the time-sensitive nature of operative intervention and access to multidisciplinary care, the lack of equitable distribution in certified cleft and craniofacial teams is concerning. Centers may better serve families from distant areas by establishing satellite clinics, conducting telehealth visits, and training local primary care providers in referral practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":20128,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","volume":" ","pages":"140-149"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Travel Burden to American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association-Approved Cleft and Craniofacial Teams: A Geospatial Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Madyson I Brown, Boris K Kuyeb, Laura I Galarza, Katherine C Benedict, Ian C Hoppe, Laura S Humphries\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PRS.0000000000011410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the existence of cleft and craniofacial teams approved by the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association (ACPA), access to multidisciplinary team-based care remains challenging for patients from rural areas, leading to disparities in care. The authors investigated the geospatial relationship between US counties and ACPA-approved centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The geographic location of all ACPA-approved cleft and craniofacial centers in the United States was identified. Distance between individual US counties ( n = 3142) and their closest ACPA-approved team was determined. Counties were mapped based on distance to nearest cleft or craniofacial team. Distance calculations were combined with US Census data to model the number of children served by each team and economic characteristics of families served. These relationships were analyzed using independent t tests and analysis of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 40% of US counties did not have access to an ACPA-approved craniofacial team within a 100-mile radius ( n = 1267) versus 29% for cleft teams ( n = 909). Over 90% of counties greater than 100 miles from a craniofacial team had a population less than 7500 ( n = 1150). Of the counties more than 100 miles from a cleft team, 64% had a child poverty rate greater than the national average ( n = 579). Counties with the highest birth rate and more than 100 miles to travel to an ACPA team are in the Mountain West.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the time-sensitive nature of operative intervention and access to multidisciplinary care, the lack of equitable distribution in certified cleft and craniofacial teams is concerning. Centers may better serve families from distant areas by establishing satellite clinics, conducting telehealth visits, and training local primary care providers in referral practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Plastic and reconstructive surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"140-149\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Plastic and reconstructive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011410\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011410","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Travel Burden to American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association-Approved Cleft and Craniofacial Teams: A Geospatial Analysis.
Background: Despite the existence of cleft and craniofacial teams approved by the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association (ACPA), access to multidisciplinary team-based care remains challenging for patients from rural areas, leading to disparities in care. The authors investigated the geospatial relationship between US counties and ACPA-approved centers.
Methods: The geographic location of all ACPA-approved cleft and craniofacial centers in the United States was identified. Distance between individual US counties ( n = 3142) and their closest ACPA-approved team was determined. Counties were mapped based on distance to nearest cleft or craniofacial team. Distance calculations were combined with US Census data to model the number of children served by each team and economic characteristics of families served. These relationships were analyzed using independent t tests and analysis of variance.
Results: Over 40% of US counties did not have access to an ACPA-approved craniofacial team within a 100-mile radius ( n = 1267) versus 29% for cleft teams ( n = 909). Over 90% of counties greater than 100 miles from a craniofacial team had a population less than 7500 ( n = 1150). Of the counties more than 100 miles from a cleft team, 64% had a child poverty rate greater than the national average ( n = 579). Counties with the highest birth rate and more than 100 miles to travel to an ACPA team are in the Mountain West.
Conclusions: Given the time-sensitive nature of operative intervention and access to multidisciplinary care, the lack of equitable distribution in certified cleft and craniofacial teams is concerning. Centers may better serve families from distant areas by establishing satellite clinics, conducting telehealth visits, and training local primary care providers in referral practices.
期刊介绍:
For more than 70 years Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® has been the one consistently excellent reference for every specialist who uses plastic surgery techniques or works in conjunction with a plastic surgeon. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® , the official journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, is a benefit of Society membership, and is also available on a subscription basis.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® brings subscribers up-to-the-minute reports on the latest techniques and follow-up for all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including breast reconstruction, experimental studies, maxillofacial reconstruction, hand and microsurgery, burn repair, cosmetic surgery, as well as news on medicolegal issues. The cosmetic section provides expanded coverage on new procedures and techniques and offers more cosmetic-specific content than any other journal. All subscribers enjoy full access to the Journal''s website, which features broadcast quality videos of reconstructive and cosmetic procedures, podcasts, comprehensive article archives dating to 1946, and additional benefits offered by the newly-redesigned website.