Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29061608›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Impact of regional socioeconomic variation on coordination and cost of ambulatory care: investigation of claims data from Bavaria, Germany.

Michael Mehring, Ewan Donnachie, Antonius Schneider, Martin Tauscher, Roman Gerlach, Constanze Storr, Klaus Linde, Andreas Mielck, Werner Maier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Primary Care Inequalities to the Disadvantage of the Population of Socially Deprived Urban Areas: A Case Study of Essen, Germany].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Michael MehringInstitute of General Practice, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Ewan DonnachieInstitute of General Practice, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Antonius SchneiderInstitute of General Practice, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Martin TauscherNational Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of Bavaria, Munich, Germany.
Roman GerlachNational Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of Bavaria, Munich, Germany.
Constanze StorrInstitute of General Practice, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Klaus LindeInstitute of General Practice, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Andreas MielckInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Neuherberg, Germany.
Werner MaierInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Neuherberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA considerable proportion of regional variation in healthcare use and health expenditures is to date still unexplained. The aim was to investigate regional differences in the gatekeeping role of general practitioners and to identify relevant explanatory variables at patient and district level in Bavaria, Germany.

designRetrospective routine data analysis using claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians.

participantsAll patients who consulted a specialist in ambulatory practice within the first quarter of 2011 (n=3 616 510). OUTCOMES MEASURES: Of primary interest is the effect of district-level measures of rurality, physician density and multiple deprivation on (1) the proportion of patients with general practitioner (GP) coordination of specialist care and (2) the mean amount in Euros claimed by specialist physicians.

resultsThe proportion of patients whose use of specialist services was coordinated by a GP was significantly higher in rural areas and in highly deprived regions, as compared with urban and less deprived regions. The hierarchical models revealed that increasing age and the presence of chronic diseases are the strongest predictive factors for coordination by a GP. In contrast, the presence of mental illness, an increasing number of medical condition categories and living in a city are predictors for specialist use without GP coordination. The amount claimed per patient was €10 to €20 higher in urban districts and in regions with lower deprivation. Hierarchical models indicate that this amount is on average higher for patients living in towns and lower for patients in regions with high deprivation.

conclusionThe present study shows that regional deprivation is closely associated with the way in which patients access primary and specialist care. This has clear consequences, both with respect to the role of the general practitioner and the financial costs of care.

Indexed as

General PractitionersAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionAmbulatory CareChronic DiseaseCosts and Cost AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInsurance Claim ReviewLinear Modelscoordinated healthcaregatekeepinghealthcare researchregional deprivationregional variation

Identifiers

PMID29061608
PMCPMC5665322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.