Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31344082›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia.

Vincent Lawrence Versace, Neil T Coffee, Julie Franzon, Dorothy Turner, Jarrod Lange, Danielle Taylor, Robyn Clark

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Vincent Lawrence VersaceDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8514-1763
Neil T CoffeeCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Julie FranzonCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Dorothy TurnerSpatial Sciences Group, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jarrod LangeHugo Centre for Migration and Population Research, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Danielle TaylorBasil Hetzel Institute for Translational Health Research, Discipline of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Robyn ClarkCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Flinders University · AUThe University of Adelaide · AUBasil Hetzel Institute · AUDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identity differences between a general access index (Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia; ARIA+) and a specific acute and aftercare cardiac services access index (Cardiac ARIA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsExploratory descriptive design. ARIA+ (2011) and Cardiac ARIA (2010) were compared using cross-tabulations (chi-square test for independence) and map visualisations. All Australian locations with ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA values were included in the analysis (n = 20,223). The unit of analysis was Australian locations.

resultsOf the 20,223 locations, 2757 (14% of total) had the highest level of acute cardiac access coupled with the highest level of general access. There were 1029 locations with the poorest access (5% of total). Approximately two thirds of locations in Australia were classed as having the highest level of cardiac aftercare. Locations in Major Cities, Inner Regional Australia, and Outer Regional Australia accounted for approximately 98% of this category. There were significant associations between ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA acute (χ2 = 25250.73, df = 28, p<0.001, Cramer's V = 0.559, p<0.001) and Cardiac ARIA aftercare (χ2 = 17204.38, df = 16, Cramer's V = 0.461, p<0.001).

conclusionsAlthough there were significant associations between the indices, ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA are not interchangeable. Systematic differences were apparent which can be attributed largely to the underlying specificity of the Cardiac ARIA (a time critical index that uses distance to the service of interest) compared to general accessibility quantified by the ARIA+ model (an index that uses distance to population centre). It is where the differences are located geographically that have a tangible impact upon the communities in these locations-i.e. peri-urban areas of the major capital cities, and around the more remote regional centres. There is a strong case for specific access models to be developed and updated to assist with efficient deployment of resources and targeted service provision. The reasoning behind the differences highlighted will be generalisable to any comparison between general and service-specific access models.

Indexed as

AustraliaCardiologyHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansRural Health Services

Identifiers

PMID31344082
PMCPMC6657861
OpenAlexW2962715088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.