BACKGROUND: Many patients suffering acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are transferred from one hospital to another during their hospitalization. There is little information about the outcomes related to interhospital transfer. The purpose of this study was to compare processes and outcomes of AMI care among patients undergoing interhospital transfer with special attention to the impact on mortality in rural hospitals. METHODS: National sample of Medicare patients in the Cooperative Cardiovascular Study (n = 184,295). Retrospective structured medical record review of AMI hospitalizations. Descriptive study using a retrospective propensity score analysis of clinical and administrative data for 184,295 Medicare patients admitted with clinically confirmed AMI to 4,765 hospitals between February 1994 and July 1995. Main outcome measure included: 30-day mortality, administration of aspirin, beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors, and thrombolytic therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 51,530 (28%) patients underwent interhospital transfer. Transferred patients were significantly younger, less critically ill, and had lower comorbidity than non-transferred patients. After propensity-matching, patients who underwent interhospital transfer had better quality of care anlower mortality than non-transferred patients. Patients cared for in a rural hospital had similar mortality as patients cared for in an urban hospital. CONCLUSION: Transferred patients were vastly different than non-transferred patients. However, even after a rigorous propensity-score analysis, transferred patients had lower mortality than non-transferred patients. Mortality was similar in rural and urban hospitals. Identifying patients who derive the greatest benefit from transfer may help physicians faced with the complex decision of whether to transfer a patient suffering an acute MI.

BACKGROUND: Although strong scientific evidence has shown that screening for colorectal cancer saves lives, most U.S. adults who are at the recommended age are not being screened. Prior studies suggest that barriers to routine screening vary by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, urban/rural residence, health insurance status, and factors related to health care providers and the health care environment. Relatively few studies, however, have identified and tested intervention approaches to promote routine colorectal cancer screening among diverse populations. METHODS: The Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at CDC has funded ongoing projects to develop and test interventions to promote routine colorectal cancer screening among medically underserved populations in Appalachia, the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, the High Plains region of Colorado, and other U.S. communities. RESULTS: This article provides an overview of colorectal cancer screening intervention studies currently funded by CDC that focus on a wide range of populations, including medically underserved persons who live in predominately rural areas, Hispanic and non-Hispanic persons, urban African Americans, persons with low health literacy, and persons enrolled in managed care organizations. CONCLUSIONS: These CDC-funded intervention research projects are likely to contribute importantly to evidence about what works to promote colorectal cancer screening in diverse U.S. communities. .