Evidence map›Paper›PMID 3120865›Full record

ArticleBritish medical journal (Clinical research ed.)1987

Reviewing RAWP. Variations in admission rates: implications for equitable allocation of resources.

G Bevan, R Ingram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British medical journal (Clinical research ed.), 1987. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

G BevanDepartment of Community Medicine, United Medical School of Guy's Hospital, St Thomas's Campus, London.
R Ingram

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The review of the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP) formula by the National Health Service Management Board has considered the method used to account for cross boundary flows between health authorities. There is no consensus on how this should be done subregionally, as it raises the unresolved problem of the best method of estimating the size of catchment populations. Different methods produce different population sizes when the admission rates of individuals living in different districts vary. The National Health Service/Department of Health and Social Security acute services working group on performance indicators recently considered the assumptions made by different methods in terms of admission thresholds set by hospital clinicians. More complicated methods of assessing catchment areas seem to offer little advantage over the simplest method, but none of the methods answer the underlying questions of what truly determines admission rates and whether higher admission rates are better than lower ones. Empirical research into variations in admission rates and their relation to outcomes is important for determining the fair allocation of resources in future.

Indexed as

HospitalizationCatchment Area, HealthHealth ResourcesHumansState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID3120865
PMCPMC1248079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.