Observational studyThe Journal of infection2019
Social patterning of telephone health-advice for diarrhoea and vomiting: analysis of 24 million telehealth calls in England.
Observational study in The Journal of infection, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing healthcare needs by language: interpreted Arabic and Somali telehealth calls in two regions of Sweden, 2014-18.European journal of public health · 2024Article
- Association between socioeconomic deprivation and incidence of infectious intestinal disease by pathogen and linked transmission route: An ecological analysis in the UK.Epidemiology and infection · 2023Article
- Article
- Neighbourhood unemployment and other socio-demographic predictors of emergency hospitalisation for infectious intestinal disease in England: A longitudinal ecological study.The Journal of infection · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesGastrointestinal (GI) infections are common and most people do not see a physician. There is conflicting evidence of the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on risk of GI infections. We assessed the relationship between SES and GI calls to two National Health Service (NHS) telephone advice services in England.
methodsOver 24 million calls to NHS Direct (2010-13) and NHS 111 (2013-15) were extracted from Public Health England (PHE) syndromic surveillance systems. The relationship between SES and GI calls was assessed using generalised linear models (GLM).
resultsAdjusting for rurality and age-sex interactions, in NHS Direct, children in disadvantaged areas were at lower risk of GI calls; in NHS 111 there was a higher risk of GI calls in disadvantaged areas for all ages (0-4 years RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; 5-9 years RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.36-1.51; 10-14 years RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.26-1.41; 15-19 years RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.52-1.67; 20-59 years RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.47-1.53, 60 years and over RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.09-1.14).
conclusionsDisadvantaged areas had higher risk of GI calls in NHS 111. This may relate to differences in exposure or vulnerability to GI infections, or propensity to call about GI infections.
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.