Search

To test the hypothesis that childhood sexual abuse (CSA) is a risk factor for commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), we analysed data from the Haiti Violence Against Children Survey (VACS), a population-based sample of adolescents and young adults ages 13-24 (1459 males and 1457 females). Twenty-one percent of males and 25% of females reported CSA; 6% of males and 4% of females reported CSEC. The adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for CSEC based on exposure to CSA were 5.6 (95% confidence interval/CI: 3.1-10.2) for males and 5.9 (CI: 2.6-13.0) for females. For each year earlier that males first experienced CSA, the odds of CSEC increased 60% (AOR 1.6, CI 1.2-2.0). In this first nationally-representative study of lifetime CSEC, both boys and girls victimised by CSA in Haiti were more likely to have also experienced CSEC than other youth, with children who experienced CSA at younger ages at the greatest risk.

A dearth of empirical research exists on female sex workers in Central America who begin selling sex under age 18. Data were collected from adult female sex workers (N = 1216) sampled using census and modified time-location sampling in three urban centers of Guatemala. In adjusted analyses, female sex workers who entered the sex trade under age 16 years were more likely to be HIV positive (AOR = 4.6, 95% CI 1.6, 13.2), have not received HIV education in their first year of sex trade (AOR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.5, 5.5), have experienced violence to force commercial sex (AOR = 4.6, 95% CI 2.2, 9.8) and have not used condoms in their first month (AOR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.3, 6.1) , relative to those who entered as adults. An interaction between age at entry and foreign migration at entry was found for HIV risk. Efforts to prevent adolescent sex trade entry are needed and may also help to reduce HIV rates in Guatemala.

BackgroundBihar, India has higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) and maternal and infant mortality relative to India as a whole. This study assesses whether IPV is associated with poor reproductive and maternal health outcomes, as well as whether poverty exacerbates any observed associations, among women who gave birth in the preceding 23 months in Bihar, India.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis of data from a representative household sample of mothers of children 0-23 months old in Bihar, India (N = 13,803) was conducted. Associations between lifetime IPV (physical and/or sexual violence) and poor reproductive health outcomes ever (miscarriage, stillbirth, and abortion) as well as maternal complications for the index pregnancy (early and/or prolonged labor complications, other complications during pregnancy or delivery) were assessed using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for demographics and fertility history of the mother. Models were then stratified by wealth index to determine whether observed associations were stronger for poorer versus wealthier women.ResultsIPV was reported by 45% of women in the sample. A history of miscarriage, stillbirth, and abortion was reported by 8.7, 4.6, and 1.3% of the sample, respectively. More than one in 10 women (10.7%) reported labor complications during the last pregnancy, and 16.3% reported other complications during pregnancy or delivery. Adjusted regressions revealed significant associations between IPV and miscarriage (AOR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.11-1.65) and stillbirth (AOR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.02-1.82) ever, as well as with labor complications (AOR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.04-1.54) and other pregnancy/delivery complications (AOR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.42-1.99). Women in the poorest quartile (Quartile 1) saw no associations between IPV and miscarriage (Quartile 1 AOR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.67-1.45) or stillbirth (Quartile 1 AOR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.69-1.98), whereas women in the higher wealth quartile (Quartile 3) did see associations between IPV and miscarriage (Quartile 3 AOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.07, 2.25) and stillbirth (Quartile 3 AOR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.04, 3.08).DiscussionIPV is highly prevalent in Bihar and is associated with increased risk for miscarriage, stillbirth, and maternal health complications. Associations between IPV and miscarriage and stillbirth do not hold true for the poorest women, possibly because other risks attached to poverty and deprivation may be greater contributors.

This study assesses effects of a community-based intervention across seven sites in the United States on HIV care utilization and study retention, among people living with HIV (PLWH). A two-armed study was conducted from 2013 to 2016 in each of seven community-based agencies across the United States. Each site conducted interventions involving community engagement approaches in the form of case management or patient navigation. Control conditions were standard of care involving referral to HIV clinical care. Participants (N = 583) were adults reporting erratic or no HIV care in the past 6 months. Longitudinal survey data on demographics, behavioral risks, and HIV care were collected from participants at baseline, before service delivery, and at 6-month follow-up. Unadjusted and adjusted generalized linear mixed models were used to assess the intervention effects on HIV care utilization and study retention. Participants were majority black (75.5%), cisgender male (55.1%), and heterosexual (55.4%). No significant intervention effect was observed on HIV care utilization, although both groups improved significantly over time [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30-3.37]. Intervention participants were more likely to be retained in the study (AOR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.03-2.20). Community intervention did not affect HIV care utilization more than standard of care, but intervention participants were more likely to be retained in the study, suggesting that such approaches support relationship building in ways that can facilitate follow-up of socially vulnerable PLWH. More research is needed to understand how such community efforts can support better HIV care utilization in these populations.

BackgroundBihar, India has higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) and maternal and infant mortality relative to India as a whole. This study assesses whether IPV is associated with poor reproductive and maternal health outcomes, as well as whether poverty exacerbates any observed associations, among women who gave birth in the preceding 23 months in Bihar, India.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis of data from a representative household sample of mothers of children 0-23 months old in Bihar, India (N = 13,803) was conducted. Associations between lifetime IPV (physical and/or sexual violence) and poor reproductive health outcomes ever (miscarriage, stillbirth, and abortion) as well as maternal complications for the index pregnancy (early and/or prolonged labor complications, other complications during pregnancy or delivery) were assessed using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for demographics and fertility history of the mother. Models were then stratified by wealth index to determine whether observed associations were stronger for poorer versus wealthier women.ResultsIPV was reported by 45% of women in the sample. A history of miscarriage, stillbirth, and abortion was reported by 8.7, 4.6, and 1.3% of the sample, respectively. More than one in 10 women (10.7%) reported labor complications during the last pregnancy, and 16.3% reported other complications during pregnancy or delivery. Adjusted regressions revealed significant associations between IPV and miscarriage (AOR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.11-1.65) and stillbirth (AOR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.02-1.82) ever, as well as with labor complications (AOR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.04-1.54) and other pregnancy/delivery complications (AOR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.42-1.99). Women in the poorest quartile (Quartile 1) saw no associations between IPV and miscarriage (Quartile 1 AOR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.67-1.45) or stillbirth (Quartile 1 AOR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.69-1.98), whereas women in the higher wealth quartile (Quartile 3) did see associations between IPV and miscarriage (Quartile 3 AOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.07, 2.25) and stillbirth (Quartile 3 AOR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.04, 3.08).DiscussionIPV is highly prevalent in Bihar and is associated with increased risk for miscarriage, stillbirth, and maternal health complications. Associations between IPV and miscarriage and stillbirth do not hold true for the poorest women, possibly because other risks attached to poverty and deprivation may be greater contributors.

PurposeTo compare a novel generalized competing event (GCE) model versus the standard Cox proportional hazards regression model for stratifying elderly patients with cancer who are at risk for competing events.MethodsWe identified 84,319 patients with nonmetastatic prostate, head and neck, and breast cancers from the SEER-Medicare database. Using demographic, tumor, and clinical characteristics, we trained risk scores on the basis of GCE versus Cox models for cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. In test sets, we examined the predictive ability of the risk scores on the different causes of death, including second cancer mortality, noncancer mortality, and cause-specific mortality, using Fine-Gray regression and area under the curve. We compared how well models stratified subpopulations according to the ratio of the cumulative cause-specific hazard for cancer mortality to the cumulative hazard for overall mortality (ω) using the Akaike Information Criterion.ResultsIn each sample, increasing GCE risk scores were associated with increased cancer-specific mortality and decreased competing mortality, whereas risk scores from Cox models were associated with both increased cancer-specific mortality and competing mortality. GCE models created greater separation in the area under the curve for cancer-specific mortality versus noncancer mortality (P < .001), indicating better discriminatory ability between these events. Comparing the GCE model to Cox models of cause-specific mortality or all-cause mortality, the respective Akaike Information Criterion scores were superior (lower) in each sample: prostate cancer, 28.6 versus 35.5 versus 39.4; head and neck cancer, 21.1 versus 29.4 versus 40.2; and breast cancer, 24.6 versus 32.3 versus 50.8.ConclusionCompared with standard modeling approaches, GCE models improve stratification of elderly patients with cancer according to their risk of dying from cancer relative to overall mortality.

PurposeTo compare a novel generalized competing event (GCE) model versus the standard Cox proportional hazards regression model for stratifying elderly patients with cancer who are at risk for competing events.MethodsWe identified 84,319 patients with nonmetastatic prostate, head and neck, and breast cancers from the SEER-Medicare database. Using demographic, tumor, and clinical characteristics, we trained risk scores on the basis of GCE versus Cox models for cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. In test sets, we examined the predictive ability of the risk scores on the different causes of death, including second cancer mortality, noncancer mortality, and cause-specific mortality, using Fine-Gray regression and area under the curve. We compared how well models stratified subpopulations according to the ratio of the cumulative cause-specific hazard for cancer mortality to the cumulative hazard for overall mortality (ω) using the Akaike Information Criterion.ResultsIn each sample, increasing GCE risk scores were associated with increased cancer-specific mortality and decreased competing mortality, whereas risk scores from Cox models were associated with both increased cancer-specific mortality and competing mortality. GCE models created greater separation in the area under the curve for cancer-specific mortality versus noncancer mortality (P < .001), indicating better discriminatory ability between these events. Comparing the GCE model to Cox models of cause-specific mortality or all-cause mortality, the respective Akaike Information Criterion scores were superior (lower) in each sample: prostate cancer, 28.6 versus 35.5 versus 39.4; head and neck cancer, 21.1 versus 29.4 versus 40.2; and breast cancer, 24.6 versus 32.3 versus 50.8.ConclusionCompared with standard modeling approaches, GCE models improve stratification of elderly patients with cancer according to their risk of dying from cancer relative to overall mortality.

PurposeAdjuvant radiation therapy, which has proven benefit against breast cancer, has historically been associated with an increased incidence of ischemic heart disease. Modern techniques have reduced this risk, but a detailed evaluation has not recently been conducted. The present study evaluated the effect of current radiation practices on ischemia-related cardiac events and procedures in a population-based study of older women with nonmetastatic breast cancer.Methods and materialsA total of 29,102 patients diagnosed from 2000 to 2009 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Medicare claims were used to identify the radiation therapy and cardiac outcomes. Competing risk models were used to assess the effect of radiation on these outcomes.ResultsPatients with left-sided breast cancer had a small increase in their risk of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after radiation therapy-the 10-year cumulative incidence for these patients was 5.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9%-6.2%) and 4.5% (95% CI 4.0%-5.0%) for right-sided patients. This risk was limited to women with previous cardiac disease. For patients who underwent PCI, those with left-sided breast cancer had a significantly increased risk of cardiac mortality with a subdistribution hazard ratio of 2.02 (95% CI 1.23-3.34). No other outcome, including cardiac mortality for the entire cohort, showed a significant relationship with tumor laterality.ConclusionsFor women with a history of cardiac disease, those with left-sided breast cancer who underwent radiation therapy had increased rates of PCI and a survival decrement if treated with PCI. The results of the present study could help cardiologists and radiation oncologists better stratify patients who need more aggressive cardioprotective techniques.

PurposeAdjuvant radiation therapy, which has proven benefit against breast cancer, has historically been associated with an increased incidence of ischemic heart disease. Modern techniques have reduced this risk, but a detailed evaluation has not recently been conducted. The present study evaluated the effect of current radiation practices on ischemia-related cardiac events and procedures in a population-based study of older women with nonmetastatic breast cancer.Methods and materialsA total of 29,102 patients diagnosed from 2000 to 2009 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Medicare claims were used to identify the radiation therapy and cardiac outcomes. Competing risk models were used to assess the effect of radiation on these outcomes.ResultsPatients with left-sided breast cancer had a small increase in their risk of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after radiation therapy-the 10-year cumulative incidence for these patients was 5.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9%-6.2%) and 4.5% (95% CI 4.0%-5.0%) for right-sided patients. This risk was limited to women with previous cardiac disease. For patients who underwent PCI, those with left-sided breast cancer had a significantly increased risk of cardiac mortality with a subdistribution hazard ratio of 2.02 (95% CI 1.23-3.34). No other outcome, including cardiac mortality for the entire cohort, showed a significant relationship with tumor laterality.ConclusionsFor women with a history of cardiac disease, those with left-sided breast cancer who underwent radiation therapy had increased rates of PCI and a survival decrement if treated with PCI. The results of the present study could help cardiologists and radiation oncologists better stratify patients who need more aggressive cardioprotective techniques.

Background and purposeIn cost-effective healthcare systems, the cost of services should parallel patient complexity or quality of care. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the cost of radiotherapy correlates with patient-related outcomes among a large cohort of breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant breast radiation.Materials and methods23,127 women with non-metastatic breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 to 2009. Medicare reimbursements were used as a proxy for cost of radiotherapy, and Medicare claims were examined to identify local toxicities, and breast cancer-related endpoints. The impact of cost on these outcomes was studied with multivariable Fine-Gray models to account for competing risks.ResultsThe median cost (and interquartile range) of a course of breast radiation was $8100 ($6700-9700). Increased radiation costs were not associated with the occurrence of treatment-related toxicities (all p-values>0.05), ipsilateral breast recurrence (p=0.55), or breast cancer-related mortality (p=0.55).ConclusionHigher costs for adjuvant radiation in breast cancer were not associated with a decreased risk of patient-related outcomes suggesting inefficiency in Medicare reimbursements. Future efforts should focus on prospective evaluation of alternative payment models for radiotherapy.

Background and purposeIn cost-effective healthcare systems, the cost of services should parallel patient complexity or quality of care. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the cost of radiotherapy correlates with patient-related outcomes among a large cohort of breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant breast radiation.Materials and methods23,127 women with non-metastatic breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 to 2009. Medicare reimbursements were used as a proxy for cost of radiotherapy, and Medicare claims were examined to identify local toxicities, and breast cancer-related endpoints. The impact of cost on these outcomes was studied with multivariable Fine-Gray models to account for competing risks.ResultsThe median cost (and interquartile range) of a course of breast radiation was $8100 ($6700-9700). Increased radiation costs were not associated with the occurrence of treatment-related toxicities (all p-values>0.05), ipsilateral breast recurrence (p=0.55), or breast cancer-related mortality (p=0.55).ConclusionHigher costs for adjuvant radiation in breast cancer were not associated with a decreased risk of patient-related outcomes suggesting inefficiency in Medicare reimbursements. Future efforts should focus on prospective evaluation of alternative payment models for radiotherapy.

PurposeRadiation therapy represents a major source of health care expenditure for patients with cancer. Understanding the sources of variability in the cost of radiation therapy is critical to evaluating the efficiency of the current reimbursement system and could shape future policy reform. This study defines the magnitude and sources of variation in the cost of radiation therapy for a large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries.Patients and methodsWe identified 55,288 patients within the SEER database diagnosed with breast, lung, or prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009. The cost of radiation therapy was estimated from Medicare reimbursements. Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the influence of patient, tumor, and radiation therapy provider characteristics on variation in cost of radiation therapy.ResultsFor breast, lung, and prostate cancers, the median cost (interquartile range) of a course of radiation therapy was $8,600 ($7,300 to $10,300), $9,000 ($7,500 to $11,100), and $18,000 ($11,300 to $25,500), respectively. For all three cancer subtypes, patient- or tumor-related factors accounted for < 3% of the variation in cost. Factors unrelated to the patient, including practice type, geography, and individual radiation therapy provider, accounted for a substantial proportion of the variation in cost, ranging from 44% with breast, 43% with lung, and 61% with prostate cancer.ConclusionIn this study, factors unrelated to the individual patient accounted for the majority of variation in the cost of radiation therapy, suggesting potential inefficiency in health care expenditure. Future research should determine whether this variability translates into improved patient outcomes for further evaluation of current reimbursement practices.

PurposeRadiation therapy represents a major source of health care expenditure for patients with cancer. Understanding the sources of variability in the cost of radiation therapy is critical to evaluating the efficiency of the current reimbursement system and could shape future policy reform. This study defines the magnitude and sources of variation in the cost of radiation therapy for a large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries.Patients and methodsWe identified 55,288 patients within the SEER database diagnosed with breast, lung, or prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009. The cost of radiation therapy was estimated from Medicare reimbursements. Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the influence of patient, tumor, and radiation therapy provider characteristics on variation in cost of radiation therapy.ResultsFor breast, lung, and prostate cancers, the median cost (interquartile range) of a course of radiation therapy was $8,600 ($7,300 to $10,300), $9,000 ($7,500 to $11,100), and $18,000 ($11,300 to $25,500), respectively. For all three cancer subtypes, patient- or tumor-related factors accounted for < 3% of the variation in cost. Factors unrelated to the patient, including practice type, geography, and individual radiation therapy provider, accounted for a substantial proportion of the variation in cost, ranging from 44% with breast, 43% with lung, and 61% with prostate cancer.ConclusionIn this study, factors unrelated to the individual patient accounted for the majority of variation in the cost of radiation therapy, suggesting potential inefficiency in health care expenditure. Future research should determine whether this variability translates into improved patient outcomes for further evaluation of current reimbursement practices.