John Kerner, Postdoctoral Faculty Sponsor
Legislative advocacy: evaluation of a grand rounds intervention for pediatricians.
2014; 14 (2): 181-185
To evaluate the impact of a Grand Rounds Action Alert (GRAA) intervention on the behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes of pediatric grand rounds (GR) attendees; and to assess its acceptability.A cross-sectional, quasi-experimental study was performed at a freestanding children's hospital. GRAA on child health legislative topics were presented in the first 2 minutes of the pediatric GR session as well as posted outside. Each session included an action item, such as writing/signing letters to elected officials or informational sheets with legislator contact information. Main outcome measures included self-reported behavior, advocacy knowledge, attitudes, and acceptability.One year after GRAA implementation, GR attendees with high exposure to the intervention were more likely to have written/signed a letter to a legislator compared to those with low/no exposure (60% vs 35%, P = .016). Those with high exposure were also more knowledgeable regarding financing of health care for low-income children (20% vs 5%, P = .027). Attitudes toward advocacy at baseline were positive: respondents agreed it is important to remain informed about (98%) and advocate for (94%) legislation favorable to children's health. Implementing this program was challenging, but the intervention was accepted favorably: 93% of respondents agreed that GRAA should continue.GRAA facilitated participation in legislative advocacy behaviors while improving self-perceived knowledge of legislative issues relating to children's health. They were well received in a large tertiary children's hospital.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.acap.2013.08.004
View details for PubMedID 24126045
Geographical Rural Status and Health Outcomes in Pediatric Liver Transplantation: An Analysis of 6 Years of National United Network of Organ Sharing Data
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
2013; 162 (2): 313-?
To determine whether children in rural areas have worse health than children in urban areas after liver transplantation (LT).We used urban influence codes published by the US Department of Agriculture to categorize 3307 pediatric patients undergoing LT in the United Network of Organ Sharing database between 2004 and 2009 as urban or rural. Allograft rejection, patient death, and graft failure were used as primary outcome measures of post-LT health. Pediatric end-stage liver disease/model of end-stage liver disease scores >20 was used to measure worse pre-LT health.In a multivariate analysis, we found greater rates of allograft rejection within 6 months of LT (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.05-1.53) and a lower occurrence of posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41-0.99) in patients in rural areas. The difference in allograft rejection was eliminated at 1 year of LT (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.98-1.42). Rural location did not impact other outcome measures.We conclude that rural location makes a negative impact on patient health within the first 6 months of LT by increasing the risk for allograft rejection, although patients in rural areas may have lower rates of developing posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder. Long-term adverse health effects were not seen.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.07.015
View details for Web of Science ID 000313579900021
View details for PubMedID 22914224
Effects of rural status on health outcomes in pediatric liver transplantation: A single center analysis of 388 patients
2011; 15 (3): 300-305
Rural status of patients may impact health before and after pediatric LT. We used UI codes published by the USDA to stratify patients as urban or rural depending county residence. A total of 388 patients who had LT and who met criteria were included. Rejection, PTLD, and survival were used as primary outcome measures of post-LT health. UNOS Status 1 and PELD/MELD scores >20 were used as secondary outcome measures of poorer pre-LT health. Logistic regression models were run to determine associations. We did not find any statistically significant differences in pre- or post-LT outcomes with respect to rurality. Among rural patients, there was a general trend for decreased incidence of rejection (25.0% vs. 33.4%; OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.29-1.44), increased risk of PTLD (5.6% vs. 3.4%; OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.36-3.31), and decreased survival (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.34-2.13) after LT. Rural patients also tended to be sicker at the time of LT than patients from urban areas, with increased proportion of Status 1 (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.51-2.70) and PELD/MELD scores >20 (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.59-2.45). From a single center experience, we conclude that rurality did not significantly affect health outcomes after LT, although a larger study may validate the general trends that rural patients may have decreased rejection, increased PTLD, and mortality, and be in poorer health at the time of LT.
View details for DOI 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2010.01452.x
View details for Web of Science ID 000289628100018
View details for PubMedID 21450010