Digitalcommons@DMU (Des Moines University)
Not a member yet
3309 research outputs found
Sort by
Respecting Differences, Valuing Diversity, DMU Pin
No full textA medium sized gold pin with a blue border that says Respecting Differences, Valuing Diversity . In the center of the pin are silhouettes of faces in multiple colors and underneath it says DMU .https://digitalcommons.dmu.edu/artifacts_dmu/1014/thumbnail.jp
UOMHS One Year Service Award Watch and Case
No full textA black leather case inside a white cardboard box holds a black leather strapped watch with a gold rim. University of Osteopathic Medicine and Health Sciences and the logo are in the background of the watch. Written on the top of the white box is John Parmeter, esq. One year service award UOMHS, At HOC Award\u27s Committee .https://digitalcommons.dmu.edu/artifacts_dmu/1022/thumbnail.jp
Large Osteopathic Physician & Surgeon Pin
No full textA large, bronze pin with a red border and green center. Osteopathic Physician & Surgeon is printed on the border with the D.O. Caduceus symbol in the green center.https://digitalcommons.dmu.edu/artifacts_dmu/1015/thumbnail.jp
Dr. Harry Elmets Portrait
No full textA portrait of Dr. Harry Elmets, Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine, framed by poster board.https://digitalcommons.dmu.edu/archive_images/2023/thumbnail.jp
President Azneer Portrait
No full textA poster size portrait of President J. Leonard Azneer standing in front of a window with a book titled Medical Ethics in his hands.https://digitalcommons.dmu.edu/archive_images/2057/thumbnail.jp
Dr. Jean F. LeRoque Portrait
No full textA portrait of Dr. Jean F. LeRoque.https://digitalcommons.dmu.edu/archive_images/2035/thumbnail.jp
Geographic distance to Commission on Cancer-accredited and nonaccredited hospitals in the United States
No full textPurpose: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) establishes standards to support multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care. CoC-accredited cancer programs diagnose and/or treat 73% of patients in the United States. However, rural patients may experience diminished access to CoC-accredited cancer programs. Our study evaluated distance to hospitals by CoC accreditation status, rurality, and Census Division. Methods: All US hospitals were identified from public-use Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, then merged with CoC-accreditation data. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) were used to categorize counties as metro (RUCC 1-3), large rural (RUCC 4-6), or small rural (RUCC 7-9). Distance from each county centroid to the nearest CoC and non-CoC hospital was calculated using the Great Circle Distance method in ArcGIS. Findings: Of 1,382 CoC-accredited hospitals, 89% were in metro counties. Small rural counties contained a total of 30 CoC and 794 non-CoC hospitals. CoC hospitals were located 4.0, 10.1, and 11.5 times farther away than non-CoC hospitals for residents of metro, large rural, and small rural counties, respectively, while the average distance to non-CoC hospitals was similar across groups (9.4-13.6 miles). Distance to CoC-accredited facilities was greatest west of the Mississippi River, in particular the Mountain Division (99.2 miles). Conclusions: Despite similar proximity to non-CoC hospitals across groups, CoC hospitals are located farther from large and small rural counties than metro counties, suggesting rural patients have diminished access to multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care afforded by CoC-accredited hospitals. Addressing distance-based access barriers to high-quality, comprehensive cancer treatment in rural US communities will require a multisectoral approach
Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan differences of the impact of COVID-19 on cancer survivors\u27 care
No full textPurpose: To evaluate pandemic-related changes in cancer-related care for cancer survivors residing in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas. Methods: We used data from the Health Information National Trends-Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (HINTS-SEER) survey administered to cancer survivors from the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, Iowa, and New Mexico between January and August 2021. Respondents were queried on changes to their cancer-related care, including treatment, follow-up appointments, and routine cancer screening/preventive care. We calculated weighted percentages and Rao-Scott chi-square tests for reported differences between nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas. Findings: Compared to survivors residing in metropolitan areas, a higher proportion of those in nonmetropolitan areas reported that their cancer treatment or follow-up appointments were unaffected by the pandemic (38.6% vs 28.1%; P =.008). Survivors in metropolitan areas experienced more of a shift in cancer treatment or follow-up appointments to telehealth (12.5% vs 5.7%, P =.003), but there was no difference in appointment cancellations. More survivors residing in metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan areas reported shifts to telehealth for preventive care (8.2% vs 2.9%, P =.005). There was no difference across nonmetropolitan and metropolitan survivors reporting that cancer-related care was cancelled, that routine cancer screening or preventive care was unaffected by the pandemic, or that providers discussed COVID-19 risks. Conclusions: Survivors in nonmetropolitan compared to metropolitan areas had less perceived change in cancer follow-up and treatment schedules. It will be important to assess whether shifts in follow-up and preventive care to telehealth for cancer survivors in need of care during the COVID-19 pandemic affect their long-term outcomes
Quantifying the impact of introducing HPV vaccines in 2006 on 25-29-year-old cervical cancer incidence in 2022
No full textNearly all cervical cancers are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). In 2006, adolescent females were recommended to receive the HPV vaccine. Our study aimed to quantify the impact of introducing the HPV vaccine in 2006 on cervical cancer incidence in 2022. We analyzed the latest Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Our design compared the change in cervical cancer incidence from 2019 to 2022 between females recommended for HPV vaccination in 2006 (age 25-29) and females who were not (age 35-54). Beyond simple pre/post comparisons, our linear regression model adjusted for age-specific incidence trends. We found that, unlike the stagnate trends in older females between 2019 and 2022, in 25-29-year-old females, cervical cancer incidence declined 2.1 cases/100 000 (95% CI = −2.7 to −1.6): a 48% reduction from baseline trends. Although tempered by uneven adherence, after 15 years we finally appear to be realizing quantifiable benefits from this cancer prevention vaccine
Unidentified Laboratory 01
No full textAn unidentified laboratory.https://digitalcommons.dmu.edu/archive_images/2012/thumbnail.jp