Urolithiasis risk

A comparison between healthcare providers and the general population

Ming Hung Chen, Shih Feng Weng, Chien Chin Hsu, Hung Jung Lin, Shih Bin Su, Jhi Joung Wang, How-Ran Guo, Chien Cheng Huang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Healthcare providers have many health-related risk factors that might contribute to urolithiasis: a heavy workload, a stressful workplace, and an unhealthy quality of life. However, the urolithiasis risk in healthcare providers is not clear. Methods: Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 50,226 physicians, 20,677 pharmacists, 122,357 nurses, and 25,059 other healthcare providers as the study cohort and then randomly selected an identical number of patients who are not healthcare providers (general population) as the comparison cohort for this study. Conditional logistical regression analysis was used to compare the urolithiasis risk between healthcare providers and comparisons. Physician specialty subgroups were also analyzed. Results: Physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did the general population (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.682; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.634-0.732) and other healthcare providers (AOR: 0.661; 95 % CI 0.588-0.742) after adjusting for hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, and residence location. For pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare providers, the urolithiasis risk was not significantly different than that for general population. Subgroup analysis showed that surgeons and family medicine physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did physician comparisons (AOR: 0.778; 95 % CI: 0.630-0.962 and AOR: 0.737; 95 % CI: 0.564-0.962, respectively). Conclusions: Although job stress and heavy workloads affect physicians' health, physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did the general population and other healthcare providers. This might be attributable to their greater medical knowledge and access to healthcare. Our findings provide useful information for public health policy makers about the disease risks of healthcare providers.

Original languageEnglish
Article number273
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Jul 18

Fingerprint

Urolithiasis
Health Personnel
Population
Physicians
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Workload
Pharmacists
Cohort Studies
Nurses
Family Physicians
Health
National Health Programs
Public Policy
Health Policy
Hyperlipidemias
Administrative Personnel
Taiwan
Workplace
Coronary Artery Disease

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Chen, M. H., Weng, S. F., Hsu, C. C., Lin, H. J., Su, S. B., Wang, J. J., ... Huang, C. C. (2016). Urolithiasis risk: A comparison between healthcare providers and the general population. BMC Health Services Research, 16(1), [273]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1539-7
Chen, Ming Hung ; Weng, Shih Feng ; Hsu, Chien Chin ; Lin, Hung Jung ; Su, Shih Bin ; Wang, Jhi Joung ; Guo, How-Ran ; Huang, Chien Cheng. / Urolithiasis risk : A comparison between healthcare providers and the general population. In: BMC Health Services Research. 2016 ; Vol. 16, No. 1.
@article{6bcff4b9dd4e4c00a7e07ddc94d9c52a,
title = "Urolithiasis risk: A comparison between healthcare providers and the general population",
abstract = "Background: Healthcare providers have many health-related risk factors that might contribute to urolithiasis: a heavy workload, a stressful workplace, and an unhealthy quality of life. However, the urolithiasis risk in healthcare providers is not clear. Methods: Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 50,226 physicians, 20,677 pharmacists, 122,357 nurses, and 25,059 other healthcare providers as the study cohort and then randomly selected an identical number of patients who are not healthcare providers (general population) as the comparison cohort for this study. Conditional logistical regression analysis was used to compare the urolithiasis risk between healthcare providers and comparisons. Physician specialty subgroups were also analyzed. Results: Physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did the general population (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.682; 95 {\%} confidence interval [CI]: 0.634-0.732) and other healthcare providers (AOR: 0.661; 95 {\%} CI 0.588-0.742) after adjusting for hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, and residence location. For pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare providers, the urolithiasis risk was not significantly different than that for general population. Subgroup analysis showed that surgeons and family medicine physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did physician comparisons (AOR: 0.778; 95 {\%} CI: 0.630-0.962 and AOR: 0.737; 95 {\%} CI: 0.564-0.962, respectively). Conclusions: Although job stress and heavy workloads affect physicians' health, physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did the general population and other healthcare providers. This might be attributable to their greater medical knowledge and access to healthcare. Our findings provide useful information for public health policy makers about the disease risks of healthcare providers.",
author = "Chen, {Ming Hung} and Weng, {Shih Feng} and Hsu, {Chien Chin} and Lin, {Hung Jung} and Su, {Shih Bin} and Wang, {Jhi Joung} and How-Ran Guo and Huang, {Chien Cheng}",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1186/s12913-016-1539-7",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

Urolithiasis risk : A comparison between healthcare providers and the general population. / Chen, Ming Hung; Weng, Shih Feng; Hsu, Chien Chin; Lin, Hung Jung; Su, Shih Bin; Wang, Jhi Joung; Guo, How-Ran; Huang, Chien Cheng.

In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, 273, 18.07.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Urolithiasis risk

T2 - A comparison between healthcare providers and the general population

AU - Chen, Ming Hung

AU - Weng, Shih Feng

AU - Hsu, Chien Chin

AU - Lin, Hung Jung

AU - Su, Shih Bin

AU - Wang, Jhi Joung

AU - Guo, How-Ran

AU - Huang, Chien Cheng

PY - 2016/7/18

Y1 - 2016/7/18

N2 - Background: Healthcare providers have many health-related risk factors that might contribute to urolithiasis: a heavy workload, a stressful workplace, and an unhealthy quality of life. However, the urolithiasis risk in healthcare providers is not clear. Methods: Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 50,226 physicians, 20,677 pharmacists, 122,357 nurses, and 25,059 other healthcare providers as the study cohort and then randomly selected an identical number of patients who are not healthcare providers (general population) as the comparison cohort for this study. Conditional logistical regression analysis was used to compare the urolithiasis risk between healthcare providers and comparisons. Physician specialty subgroups were also analyzed. Results: Physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did the general population (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.682; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.634-0.732) and other healthcare providers (AOR: 0.661; 95 % CI 0.588-0.742) after adjusting for hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, and residence location. For pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare providers, the urolithiasis risk was not significantly different than that for general population. Subgroup analysis showed that surgeons and family medicine physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did physician comparisons (AOR: 0.778; 95 % CI: 0.630-0.962 and AOR: 0.737; 95 % CI: 0.564-0.962, respectively). Conclusions: Although job stress and heavy workloads affect physicians' health, physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did the general population and other healthcare providers. This might be attributable to their greater medical knowledge and access to healthcare. Our findings provide useful information for public health policy makers about the disease risks of healthcare providers.

AB - Background: Healthcare providers have many health-related risk factors that might contribute to urolithiasis: a heavy workload, a stressful workplace, and an unhealthy quality of life. However, the urolithiasis risk in healthcare providers is not clear. Methods: Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 50,226 physicians, 20,677 pharmacists, 122,357 nurses, and 25,059 other healthcare providers as the study cohort and then randomly selected an identical number of patients who are not healthcare providers (general population) as the comparison cohort for this study. Conditional logistical regression analysis was used to compare the urolithiasis risk between healthcare providers and comparisons. Physician specialty subgroups were also analyzed. Results: Physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did the general population (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.682; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.634-0.732) and other healthcare providers (AOR: 0.661; 95 % CI 0.588-0.742) after adjusting for hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, and residence location. For pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare providers, the urolithiasis risk was not significantly different than that for general population. Subgroup analysis showed that surgeons and family medicine physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did physician comparisons (AOR: 0.778; 95 % CI: 0.630-0.962 and AOR: 0.737; 95 % CI: 0.564-0.962, respectively). Conclusions: Although job stress and heavy workloads affect physicians' health, physicians had a lower urolithiasis risk than did the general population and other healthcare providers. This might be attributable to their greater medical knowledge and access to healthcare. Our findings provide useful information for public health policy makers about the disease risks of healthcare providers.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978758136&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978758136&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12913-016-1539-7

DO - 10.1186/s12913-016-1539-7

M3 - Article

VL - 16

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

IS - 1

M1 - 273

ER -