ArticleHealth services research2019
Patients' preferences over care settings for minor illnesses and injuries.
Article in Health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why Do Patients Opt for the Emergency Department over Other Care Choices? A Multi-Hospital Analysis.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Firework injuries are increasing in the United States: An analysis of the National Emergency Department Sample.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
- Patients' preferences over care settings for minor illnesses and injuries.Health services research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo identify consumers' preferences over care settings, such as physicians' offices, emergency rooms (ERs), urgent care centers, retail clinics, and virtual physicians on smartphones, for minor illnesses. DATA SOURCES: A survey conducted between 9/27/16 and 12/7/16 emailed to all University of California, Irvine employees. STUDY
designParticipants were presented with 10 clinical scenarios and asked to choose the setting in which they wanted to receive care. We estimated multinomial conditional logit regression models, conditioning the choice on out-of-pocket costs, wait time, travel time, and chooser characteristics. DATA COLLECTION: 5451 out of 21 037 employees responded. PRINCIPAL
findingsOut-of-pocket costs and wait time had minimal impact on patient's preference for site of care. Choices were driven primarily by the clinical scenario and patient characteristics. For chronic conditions and children's well-visits, the doctor's office was the preferred choice by a strong majority, but for most acute conditions, either the ER (for high severity) or urgent care clinics (for lower severity) were preferred to the office setting, particularly among younger patients and those with less education.
conclusionsPatients have several alternatives to traditional physicians' offices and ERs. The low impact of out-of-pocket costs suggests that insurers interested in encouraging increased utilization of alternatives would need to consider substantial changes to benefit structure.
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.