Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundMovement disorders persons from underserved areas have increased barriers to access tertiary care. There is currently limited data on the geographic and demographic profile of movement disorders persons from underserved areas.MethodsA retrospective chart review of the geographic and demographic profile of consecutive cases seen between 2002-2017 at the University of Florida Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases (UF-NFIND) was performed. Information collected included age, sex, diagnosis, zip code, treatment received, and insurance information. The distances between each person's home residence and the nearest movement disorders center of excellence (MDC) as well as the distance to the UF-NFIND were calculated using ArcGIS 10.3.ResultsA total of 5.2% (355/6867) of the sample population were identified as a Medicaid/self-pay population and classified as underserved. The most common diagnoses were tic disorder (19.2%), dystonia (18.3%), and Parkinson's disease (14.3%). In underserved persons, the median distances from their homes to the UF-NFIND (82.19 [45.79-176.93] km) vs. their nearest MDC (63.34 [26.91-121.43] km) were significantly different (p DiscussionUnderserved persons in our study travelled further to receive subspecialty care at UF-NFIND than closer MDCs. Potential reasons for underutilization of closer care could possibly include research opportunities, availability of specific treatments or procedures, insurance restrictions, and limited specialist availability. Despite this observation, underserved persons were underrepresented at our institution compared to the proportion of Medicaid/uninsured patients in Florida. Our results highlight the need for increased awareness of care options for underserved movement disorders populations.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.