BEACH overview.

PubMed · 16548111

BEACH overview.

Abstract

The BEACH (Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health) program, a continuous national study of general practice, began in April 1998 and is now in its eighth year. More than 7500 GPs have participated to date (about one-third of the total workforce) and data are available for about 750,000 encounters. The following overview is designed to disseminate key findings from BEACH, to publicize the annual report, and as a public expression of gratitude to the GP participants without whose generous contribution this study would not be possible.

Explore related subjects

Age Factors Australia Databases as Topic Drug Utilization Family Practice Humans National Health Programs Practice Patterns, Physicians'Professional Practice Location Time Factors Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

2006. BEACH overview.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16548111/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Choice of time scale and its effect on significance of predictors in longitudinal studies.

Time-to-event regression is a frequent tool in biomedical research. In clinical trials this time is usually measured from the beginning of the study. The same approach is often adopted in the analysis of longitudinal observational studies. However, in recent years there has appeared literature making a case for the use of the date of birth as a starting point, and thus utilize age as the time-to-event. In this paper, we explore different types of age-scale models and compare them with time-on-study models in terms of the estimated regression coefficients they produce. We consider six proportional hazards regression models that differ in the choice of time scale and in the method of adjusting for the years before the study. By considering the estimating equations of these models as well as numerical simulations we conclude that correct adjustment for the age at entry is crucial in reducing bias of the estimated coefficients. The unadjusted age-scale model is inferior to any of the five other models considered, regardless of their choice of time scale. Additionally, if adjustment for age at entry is made, our analyses show very little to suggest that there exists any practically meaningful difference in the estimated regression coefficients depending on the choice of time scale. These findings are supported by four practical examples from the Framingham Heart Study.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2007

True health vs response styles: exploring cross-country differences in self-reported health.

The aim of this paper is to decompose cross-national differences in self-reported general health into parts explained by differences in 'true' health, measured by diagnosed conditions and measurements, and parts explained by cross-cultural differences in response styles. The data used were drawn from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe 2004 (SHARE), using information from 22 731 individuals aged 50 and over from 10 European countries. Self-rated general health shows large cross-country variations. According to their self-reports, the healthiest respondents live in the Scandinavian countries and the least healthy live in Southern Europe. Counterfactual self-reported health distributions that assume identical response styles in each country show much less variation in self-reports than factual self-reports. Danish and Swedish respondents tend to largely over-rate their health (relative to the average) whereas Germans tend to under-rate their health. If differences in reporting styles are taken into account, cross-country variations in general health are reduced but not eliminated. Failing to account for differences in reporting styles may yield misleading results.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2007

Outcome of craniofacial resection in patients 70 years of age and older.

BACKGROUND: Craniofacial resection (CFR) for patients over 70 years of age is uncommon. This study examines a cohort of 36 patients who had CFR at a single institution with the aim of reporting mortality, complications, and outcome. METHODS: Thirty-six patients 70 years of age and older were identified from a prospective database of 234 patients who had CFR at a single institution. The median age was 72 years (range, 70-87). Seventeen (47%) patients had had prior single-modality or combined treatment, which included surgery in 14 (40%), radiation in 13 (36%), and chemotherapy in 2 (6%). Thirty-five patients had a malignant tumor and 1 patient a benign tumor; 15 (42%) had high-grade, 17 (47%) intermediate-grade, and 4 (11%) low-grade pathology. The margins of resection were close or microscopically positive in 18 (50%). Adjuvant radiotherapy was given in 15 (42%) and chemotherapy in 1 (3%). Complications were classified into overall, local, central nervous system (CNS), systemic, and orbital. Overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes were compared with patients less than 70 years of age. RESULTS: Postoperative mortality occurred in 6 (17%) patients and postoperative complications occurred in 23 (64%) patients. Local wound complications occurred in 11 (30%), CNS in 12 (33%), systemic in 6 (17%), and orbital in 1 (3%). Postoperative mortality and complications were significantly higher in patients 70 years of age and older compared with patients less than 70 years of age (17% versus 1.5%, p = .0005; 64% versus 36%, p = .003, respectively). With a median follow-up of 27 months (range, 1-237), the 3 year OS and DSS were significantly poorer than patients less than 70 years of age (OS: 53% versus 69%, p = .0004; DSS: 61% versus 70%, p = .01) due to increased medical comorbidity (53% versus 24%, p = .001) and poorer histology (high-, intermediate-, low-grade histology: 42%, 47%, 11% versus 26%, 47%, 27%, p = .05, respectively) in patients over 70 years of age. CONCLUSION: CFR in patients 70 years of age and older is associated with increased mortality, increased incidence of complications, and a poorer overall and disease-specific 3-year survival, compared with patients less than 70 years of age. The survival was likely due to increased medical comorbidity and adverse histology. These factors must be taken into account when considering an elderly patient for craniofacial resection.

Age Factors↗