Person:
Bor, David

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Bor

First Name

David

Name

Bor, David
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.797db8b8-4909-422d-a521-00f48c3dec60

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Infective Endocarditis in the U.S., 1998–2009: A Nationwide Study
    (Public Library of Science, 2013) Bor, David; Woolhandler, Steffie; Nardin, Rachel; Brusch, John; Himmelstein, David
    Background: Previous studies based on local case series estimated the annual incidence of endocarditis in the U.S. at about 4 per 100,000 population. Small-scale studies elsewhere have reported similar incidence rates. However, no nationally-representative population-based studies have verified these estimates. Methods and findings: Using the 1998–2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which provides diagnoses from about 8 million U.S. hospitalizations annually, we examined endocarditis hospitalizations, bacteriology, co-morbidities, outcomes and costs. Hospital admissions for endocarditis rose from 25,511 in 1998 to 38, 976 in 2009 (12.7 per 100,000 population in 2009). The age-adjusted endocarditis admission rate increased 2.4% annually. The proportion of patients with intra-cardiac devices rose from 13.3% to 18.9%, while the share with drug use and/or HIV fell. Mortality remained stable at about 14.5%, as did cardiac valve replacement (9.6%). Other serious complications increased; 13.3% of patients in 2009 suffered a stroke or CNS infection, and 5.5% suffered myocardial infarction. Amongst cases with identified pathogens, Staphylococcus aureus was the most common, increasing from 37.6% in 1998 to 49.3% in 2009, 53.3% of which were MRSA. Streptococci were mentioned in 24.7% of cases, gram-negatives in 5.6% and Candida species in 1.0%. We detected no inflection in hospitalization rates after changes in prophylaxis recommendations in 2007. Mean age rose from 58.6 to 60.8 years; elderly patients suffered higher rates of myocardial infarction and death, but slightly lower rates of Staphylococcus aureus infections and neurologic complications. Our study relied on clinically diagnosed cases of endocarditis that may not meet strict criteria. Moreover, since some patients are discharged and readmitted during a single episode of endocarditis, our hospitalization figures probably slightly overstate the true incidence of this illness. Conclusions: Endocarditis is more common in the U.S. than previously believed, and is steadily increasing. Preventive efforts should focus on device-associated and health-care-associated infections.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    U.S. Physicians’ Views on Financing Options to Expand Health Insurance Coverage: A National Survey
    (Springer, 2009) McCormick, Danny; Woolhandler, Steffie; Bose-Kolanu, Anjali; Germann, Antonio; Bor, David; Himmelstein, David
    Background: Physician opinion can influence the prospects for health care reform, yet there are few recent data on physician views on reform proposals or access to medical care in the United States. Objective: To assess physician views on financing options for expanding health care coverage and on access to health care. Design and Participants: Nationally representative mail survey conducted between March 2007 and October 2007 of U.S. physicians engaged in direct patient care. Measurements: Rated support for reform options including financial incentives to induce individuals to purchase health insurance and single-payer national health insurance; rated views of several dimensions of access to care. Main results: 1,675 of 3,300 physicians responded (50.8%). Only 9% of physicians preferred the current employer-based financing system. Forty-nine percent favored either tax incentives or penalties to encourage the purchase of medical insurance, and 42% preferred a government-run, taxpayer-financed single-payer national health insurance program. The majority of respondents believed that all Americans should receive needed medical care regardless of ability to pay (89%); 33% believed that the uninsured currently have access to needed care. Nearly one fifth of respondents (19.3%) believed that even the insured lack access to needed care. Views about access were independently associated with support for single-payer national health insurance. Conclusions: The vast majority of physicians surveyed supported a change in the health care financing system. While a plurality support the use of financial incentives, a substantial proportion support single payer national health insurance. These findings challenge the perception that fundamental restructuring of the U.S. health care financing system receives little acceptance by physicians.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    How and Why Community Hospital Clinicians Document a Positive Screen for Intimate Partner Violence: A Cross-sectional Study
    (BioMed Central, 2005) Gerber, Megan R; Leiter, Karen S; Hermann, Richard C; Bor, David
    Background: This two-part study examines primary care clinicians' chart documentation and attitudes when confronted by a positive waiting room screen for intimate partner violence (IPV). Methods: Patients at community hospital-affiliated health centers completed a screening questionnaire in waiting rooms that primary care providers (PCPs) were subsequently given at the time of the visit. We first reviewed the medical records of patients who screened positive for IPV, evaluating the presence and quality of documentation. Next we administered a survey to PCPs that measured their knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding IPV. Results: Seventy-two percent of charts contained some documentation of IPV, however only 10% contained both a referral and safety plan. PCPs were more likely to refer patients (p < .05) who screened positively for mood or anxiety disorders, disclosed that they feared for their safety or were economically disadvantaged. Those that feared for their safety or endorsed mood or anxiety disorders were more likely to have notation of a safety plan in their records. When surveyed, 81.6% of clinicians strongly agreed that it is their role to inquire about IPV, but only 68% expressed confidence in their ability to manage it. In contrast, 93% expressed confidence in managing depression. Sixty-seven percent identified time constraints as a barrier to care. Predictors of PCP confidence in treating patients who have experienced IPV (p < .05) included hours of recent training and clinical experience with IPV. Conclusion: Mandatory waiting room screening for IPV does not result in high levels of referral or safety planning by PCPs. Despite the implementation of a screening process, clinicians lack confidence and time to address IPV in their patient populations suggesting that alternative methods of training and supporting PCPs need to be developed.