ArticleAIDS care2019
Association between Federally Qualified Health Center usage and emergency department utilization among California's HIV-infected Medicaid beneficiaries, 2009.
Article in AIDS care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) have long been important sources of care for publicly insured people living with HIV. FQHC users have historically used emergency departments (EDs) at a higher-than-average rate. This paper examines whether this greater use relates to access difficulties in FQHCs or to characteristics of FQHC users. Zero-inflated Poisson models were used to estimate how FQHC use related to the odds of being an ED user and annual number of ED visits, using claims data on 6,284 HIV-infected California Medicaid beneficiaries in 2008-2009. FQHC users averaged significantly greater numbers of annual ED visits than non-FQHC users and those with no outpatient usage (1.89, 1.59, and 1.70, respectively; P = 0.043). FQHC users had higher odds of being ED users (OR = 1.14; 95%CI 1.02-1.27). In multivariable analyses, FQHC clients had higher odds of ED usage controlling for demographic and service characteristics (OR = 1.15; 95%CI 1.02-1.30) but not when medical characteristics were included (OR = 1.08; 95%CI 0.95-1.24). Among ED users, FQHC use was not significantly associated with the number of ED visits in our models (rate ratio (RR) = 1.00; 95%CI 0.87-1.15). The overall difference in mean annual ED visits observed between FQHC and non-FQHC groups was reduced to insignificance (1.75; 95% CI 1.59-1.92 vs 1.70; 95%CI 1.54-1.85) after adjusting for demographic, service, and medical characteristics. Overall, FQHC users had higher ED utilization than non-FQHC users, but the disparity was largely driven by differences in underlying medical characteristics.
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.