Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26017056›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord2015

Influence of socio-economic status on access to different components of SCI management across Indian population.

H S Chhabra, A M Bhalla

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Spinal cord, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

H S ChhabraSpine Service, Indian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi, India.
A M BhallaClinical Research, Indian Spinal Injuries Center, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the influence of financial constraints on access to different components of spinal cord injury (SCI) management in various socio-economic strata of the Indian population.

settingIndian Spinal Injuries Centre (ISIC).

methodsOne hundred fifty SCI individuals who came for follow-up at ISIC between March 2009 and March 2013 with at least 1 year of community exposure after discharge were included in the study. Socio-economic classification was carried out according to the Kuppuswamy scale, a standard scale for the Indian population. A self-designed questionnaire was administered.

resultsNo sample was available from the lower group. There was a statistically significant difference (P<0.05) for the levels of difficulty perceived by different socio-economic groups in accessing different components of SCI management. Aided upper lower group was dependent on welfare schemes for in-hospital treatment but could not access other components of management once discharged. Unaided upper lower group either faced severe difficulty or could not access management. Majority of lower middle group faced severe difficulty. Upper middle group was equally divided into facing severe, moderate or no difficulty. Most patients in the upper group faced no difficulty, whereas some faced moderate and a small number of severe difficulty.

conclusionFinancial constraints affected all components of SCI management in all except the upper group. The results of the survey suggest that a very large percentage of the Indian population would find it difficult to access comprehensive SCI management and advocate extension of essential medical coverage to unaided upper lower, lower middle and upper middle groups.

Indexed as

Social ClassSpinal Cord InjuriesAdultDisease ManagementFemaleHumansIndiaMaleRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26017056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.