Observational studyEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2019
Examining emergency department inequities: Do they exist?
Observational study in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare interventions to improve health outcomes for racially/ethnic minoritised people with multiple long-term conditions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Addressing implicit bias in pharmacy: strategies for equitable patient care and improved medication outcomes.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Examining emergency department inequities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Findings from a national retrospective observational study examining Indigenous emergency care outcomes.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2022Observational
- Examining emergency department inequities: Descriptive analysis of national data (2006-2012).Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEthnic inequities in health outcomes have been well documented with Indigenous peoples experiencing a high level of healthcare need, yet low access to, and through, high-quality healthcare services. Despite Māori having a high ED use, few studies have explored the potential for ethnic inequities in emergency care within New Zealand (NZ). Healthcare delivery within an ED context is characterised by time-pressured, relatively brief, complex and demanding environments. When clinical decision-making occurs in this context, provider prejudice, stereotyping and bias are more likely. The examining emergency department inequities (EEDI) research project aims to investigate whether clinically important ethnic inequities between Māori and non-Māori exist.
methodsEEDI is a retrospective observational study examining ED admissions in NZ between 2006 and 2012 (5 976 126 ED events). EEDI has been designed from a Kaupapa Māori Research position.
resultsThe primary data source is the existing Shorter Stays in Emergency Department National Research Project (SSED) dataset that will be combined with clinical information extracted from NZ's National Minimum Dataset. The key predictor variable is patient ethnicity with other covariates including: sex, age-group, area deprivation, mode of presentation, referral method, Australasian Triage Scale and the Multimorbidity Measure (M3 Index) for co-morbidities. Generalised linear regression models will be used to investigate the associations between pre-admission variables and the measures of ED care, and to examine the contribution of each measure of ED care on ethnic inequities in mortality.
conclusionThe present study will provide the largest, most comprehensive investigation of ED outcomes by ethnicity to date in NZ.
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.