Kelly Charlotte, Hulme Claire, Farragher Tracey, Clarke Graham
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 24;6(11):e013059. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013059.
To investigate whether there is an association between differences in travel time/travel distance to healthcare services and patients' health outcomes and assimilate the methodologies used to measure this.
Systematic Review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Transport database, HMIC and EBM Reviews for studies up to 7 September 2016. Studies were excluded that included children (including maternity), emergency medical travel or countries classed as being in the global south.
A wide range of settings within primary and secondary care (these were not restricted in the search).
108 studies met the inclusion criteria. The results were mixed. 77% of the included studies identified evidence of a distance decay association, whereby patients living further away from healthcare facilities they needed to attend had worse health outcomes (eg, survival rates, length of stay in hospital and non-attendance at follow-up) than those who lived closer. 6 of the studies identified the reverse (a distance bias effect) whereby patients living at a greater distance had better health outcomes. The remaining 19 studies found no relationship. There was a large variation in the data available to the studies on the patients' geographical locations and the healthcare facilities attended, and the methods used to calculate travel times and distances were not consistent across studies.
The review observed that a relationship between travelling further and having worse health outcomes cannot be ruled out and should be considered within the healthcare services location debate.
调查前往医疗服务机构的旅行时间/旅行距离差异与患者健康结局之间是否存在关联,并归纳用于衡量此关联的方法。
系统评价。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science、交通数据库、英国医学期刊数据库(HMIC)和循证医学评价(EBM Reviews),以查找截至2016年9月7日的研究。排除了涉及儿童(包括孕产妇)、紧急医疗旅行或被归类为全球南方国家的研究。
初级和二级医疗保健中的广泛环境(检索中未对此进行限制)。
108项研究符合纳入标准。结果不一。77%的纳入研究发现了距离衰减关联的证据,即居住在离所需就诊医疗设施较远的患者,其健康结局(如生存率、住院时间和随访未就诊率)比居住较近的患者更差。6项研究发现了相反的情况(距离偏差效应),即居住距离较远的患者健康结局更好。其余19项研究未发现关联。各研究在患者地理位置、就诊医疗设施以及计算旅行时间和距离的方法等方面所获取的数据存在很大差异。
该评价指出,不能排除旅行距离更远与健康结局更差之间的关系,在医疗服务地点的讨论中应予以考虑。