Comprehensive analysis of risk factors associated with patients never having follow-up visits
Generated on August 01, 2025 at 10:06 AM
This analysis examines four key risk factors that may influence patient follow-up behavior after delivery. Each risk group represents a clinically relevant category with distinct implications for care coordination:
Risk Group: Patients with current hypertension diagnosis during pregnancy
Rationale: Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy require ongoing cardiovascular monitoring and management postpartum. These patients need specialized follow-up to prevent long-term cardiovascular complications and monitor blood pressure control.
Risk Group: Patients with documented history of hypertension prior to current pregnancy
Rationale: Patients with pre-existing hypertension have established cardiovascular risk requiring continuous care coordination. Their pregnancy may have exacerbated their condition, making postpartum follow-up critical for medication adjustment and long-term health management.
Risk Group: Patients with hypertension plus additional medical conditions (CKD, diabetes, heart disease, etc.)
Rationale: Multiple comorbidities create complex medical needs requiring multidisciplinary care and frequent monitoring. These patients face the highest risk for complications and have the greatest need for coordinated follow-up care across multiple specialties.
Risk Groups: Low, Medium, and High risk classifications based on clinical assessment
Rationale: This composite risk score integrates multiple clinical factors to identify patients most likely to benefit from intensive follow-up interventions. Higher risk patients require more frequent monitoring and proactive outreach to prevent adverse outcomes.
Understanding which risk groups are most associated with "never visits" helps healthcare systems prioritize resources and develop targeted interventions. Patients who never return for follow-up care miss opportunities for preventive care, medication management, and early detection of complications, potentially leading to more severe health outcomes and higher healthcare costs.
Figure 1: Distribution of key variables in the dataset
Figure 2: Never visit rates across different risk factor categories
| Risk Factor | Category | Total Patients | Never Visit Count | Never Visit Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HTN Status | No HTN | 3,278.0 | 1,786.0 | 54.5% |
| HTN Status | HTN | 5,498.0 | 2,736.0 | 49.8% |
| HTN History Flag | No HTN History | 2,673.0 | 1,545.0 | 57.8% |
| HTN History Flag | HTN History | 6,103.0 | 2,977.0 | 48.8% |
| Risk Group | High | 201 | 78 | 38.8% |
| Risk Group | Low | 4,188 | 2,382 | 56.9% |
| Risk Group | Medium | 4,387 | 2,062 | 47.0% |
| HTN + Comorbidity | No HTN+Comorbidity | 8,161 | 4,295 | 52.6% |
| HTN + Comorbidity | HTN+Comorbidity | 615 | 227 | 36.9% |
Figure 3: Impact of comorbidities on never visit rates
| Risk Factor | Chi-square Statistic | P-value | Statistically Significant |
|---|---|---|---|
| HTN History Flag | 60.2033 | 0.0000 | Yes |
| HTN Status | 18.1359 | 0.0000 | Yes |
| Risk Group | 96.9684 | 0.0000 | Yes |
| HTN + Any Comorbidity | 55.9403 | 0.0000 | Yes |
Statistical significance determined at α = 0.05 level
This report was automatically generated from the Never Visit Risk Analysis
For questions or additional analysis, contact the Data Analytics Team