Gender disparities in AMI management and outcomes among health professionals, their relatives, and non-health professionals in Taiwan from 1997 to 2007
Numerous reports of gender differences in the management and mortality of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients have raised concerns on gender inequity in cardiac care. However, no study has explored whether gender disparity exists among health professionals and their relatives. Therefore, this study assesses gender disparity in the management and mortality of AMI patients in Taiwan, and determines whether such disparity exists among health professionals and their relatives. National Health Insurance (NHI) files were used to obtain information on a cohort of 79,360 AMI patients aged 30–85 years in Taiwan from 1997 to 2007. The use of catheterization and revascularization (CATH/RAVS) and one-year mortality were compared between men and women in all adult patients, health professionals and their relatives, and non-health professional patients. Taiwanese women with AMI were significantly less likely than their male counterparts to receive CATH/RAVS, and showed greater one-year mortality. Similarly, women in the professional group were significantly less likely to receive CATH/RAVS. However, they did not have worse survival outcomes (hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.68–1.50) compared to men. Regarding mortality following CATH/RAVS, no gender disparities against women were observed in health professionals and their relatives, whereas significant gender disparities persisted in non-health professional patients. In conclusion, this study shows a substantial gender disparity against women in the management and one-year survival of AMI patients in Taiwan. This research extends earlier studies by showing similar gender gaps in treatment uses among health professionals and their relatives without strong evidence on gender disparities against women in survival.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 77 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:77:y:2013:i:c:p:70-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.