'and even evidence-based librarianship'?

Disparities in length of stay for hip fracture treatment between patients treated in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals

Background

Length of hospital stay (LOS) for hip fracture treatments is associated with mortality. In addition to patient demographic and clinical factors, hospital and payer type may also influence LOS, and thus mortality, among hip fracture patients; accordingly, outcome disparities between groups may arise from where patients are treated and from their health insurance type. The purpose of this study was to examine if where hip fracture patients are treated and how they pay for their care is associated with outcome disparities between patient groups. Specifically, we examined whether LOS differed between patients treated at safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals and whether LOS was associated with patients’ insurance type within each hospital category.

Methods

A sample of 48,948 hip fracture patients was extracted from New York State’s Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), 2014–2016. Using means comparison and X² tests, differences between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals on LOS and patient characteristics were examined. Relationships between LOS and hospital category (safety-net or non-safety-net) and LOS and insurance type were further evaluated through negative binomial regression models.

Results

LOS was statistically (p ≤ 0.001) longer in safety-net hospitals (7.37 days) relative to non-safety-net hospitals (6.34 days). Treatment in a safety-net hospital was associated with a LOS that was 11.7% (p = 0.003) longer than in a non-safety-net hospital. Having Medicaid was associated with a longer LOS relative to having commercial health insurance.

Conclusion

Where hip fracture patients are treated is associated with LOS and may influence outcome disparities between groups. Future research should examine whether outcome differences between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals are associated with resource availability and hospital payer mix.

EditorialEvidence based library and information practice

Whilst many of us engage in supporting clinicians in identifying, appraising and using evidence, how many of us adopt the same approach to our own work? A recent survey by the UK LIS Research Coalition indicated that 60% of respondents use research reports as a source of information whilst a similar proportion of health library respondents use professional events such as conferences as a source of information. This summer sees the 6(th) International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP6) being held at the University of Salford, UK between 27(th) -30(th) June which will go some way to satisfying this latter information need whilst the Health Information and Libraries Journal can help satisfy the need for research reports. Whatever you're doing this summer, let's make it evidence based.

Practitioners and academics as authors and readers: the case of LIS journals

Purpose

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals.

Design/methodology/approach

The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey.

Findings

It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half‐life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal.

Research limitations/implications

This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply.

Originality/value

The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.