4.6 Article

Income and Risk of Mortality After Spinal Cord Injury

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.09.032

关键词

Economics; Income; Life expectancy; Mortality; Rehabilitation; Risk; Spinal cord injuries

资金

  1. Department of Education, National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research [H133G030117, H133N000005]
  2. National Institutes of Health [IR01 NS 48117-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the association of household income and formal education with risk of mortality after spinal cord injury (SCI). Design: Cohort study. Setting: Twenty hospitals designated as Model SCI Systems of care in the United States. Participants: Adults (N=8027) with traumatic SCI, seen in one of the Model SCI Systems, who had at least 1 follow-up assessment between 1995 and 2006. All participants were at least 1 year postinjury at the time of assessment. There were 57,957 person-years and 1036 deaths. The follow-up period started with the first assessment between 1995 and 2006 and went until either the date of death or March 2009. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Mortality status was determined by routine follow-up supplemented by using the Social Security Death Index. A logistic regression model was developed to estimate the chance of dying in any given year. Results: Educational status and income were significantly predictive of mortality after adjusting for age, sex, race, and severity of injury. Compared with those with household income of $75,000 or greater, the odds of mortality was greater for those who had income between $25,000 and $75,000 (1.61) and still higher for those with less than $25,000 a year (2.41). Life expectancy differed more as a function of household income than the economic subscale of the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique. Conclusion: There was a clear gradation in survival based on familial income (high, middle, low), not just an effect of the lowest income.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据