ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2018
Patterns of Medicare-funded primary health and specialist consultations in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians in the two years before hospitalisation for ischaemic heart disease.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Challenges in Managing Acute Cardiovascular Diseases and Follow Up Care in Rural Areas: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIschaemic heart disease (IHD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Patterns of primary and specialist care in patients leading up to the first hospitalisation for IHD potentially impact on prevention and subsequent outcomes. We investigated the differences in general practice (GP), specialist and emergency department (ED) consultations, and associated resource use in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the two years preceding hospitalisation for IHD.
methodsLinked-data were used to identify first IHD admissions for Western Australians aged 25-74 years in 2002-2007. Person-linked GP, specialist and ED consultations were obtained from the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and ED records to assess health care access and costs for the preceding 2 years.
resultsAboriginal people constituted 4.7% of 27,230 IHD patients, 3.5% of 1,348,238 MBS records, and 14% of 33,170 ED presentations. Aboriginal (vs. non-Aboriginal) people were younger (mean 50.2 vs 60.5 years), more commonly women (45.2% vs 28.4%), had more comorbidities [Charlson index≥1, 35.2% vs 26.3%], were more likely to have had GP visits (adjusted rate-ratio 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12), long/prolonged (16.0% vs 11.9%) consults and non-vocationally registered GP consults (17.1% vs 3.2%), but less likely to received specialist consults (mean 1.0 vs 4.1). Mean number of urgent/semi-urgent ED presentations in the year preceding the IHD admission was higher in Aboriginal people (2.9 vs 1.9). Aboriginal people incurred 2.7% of total associated MBS expenditure (estimated at $59.7 million). Mean total cost per person was 43.3% lower in Aboriginal patients, with cost differentials being greatest in diabetic and chronic kidney disease patients.
conclusionsDespite being over-represented in urgent/semi-urgent ED presentations and admissions for IHD, Aboriginal people were under-resourced compared with the rest of the population, particularly in terms of specialist care prior to first IHD hospitalisation. The findings underscore the need for better primary and specialist shared care delivery models particularly for Aboriginal people.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.