ArticleInjury2020
Preferences for emergency medical service transport after childhood injury: An emergency department-based multi-methods study.
Article in Injury, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology of pediatric trauma in Makkah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: An observational cohort study.Saudi medical journal · 2023Observational
- Emergency Medical Services Clinicians' Pediatric Destination Decision-Making: A Qualitative Study.Cureus · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPre-hospital emergency medical services (EMS) transport can be associated with benefits following pediatric injury. However, many pediatric trauma patients do not use EMS. The objective of this study was to elucidate guardians' decision factors for pre-hospital transport for children after injury.
methodsThis is a multi-methods study of pediatric trauma patients (≤14 years) and their guardians presenting to the ED of a Level I Pediatric Trauma Center via both EMS and non-EMS modalities. Demographic information and injury characteristics were collected. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and qualitative codes were identified and assigned into themes.
results(Quantitative): Of the 29 child-guardian pairs, five participants initially presented by EMS, 18 were admitted, and the majority (66%) sustained mild injuries. Guardians' assessment of their child's injury severity did not correlate with Injury Severity Score (ISS). Neither EMS status (did or did not use EMS to transport to first hospital) nor rurality status of participants' place of residence were associated with disparate management in any of the three scenarios. (QUALITATIVE): Five themes emerged, which informed guardians' transport decisions: Factors Related to the Nature of the Patient's Injury, Guardian Attributes and Prior Experiences, Access and Availability of EMS, Perceived Risks and Benefits of EMS and Hospital, and Collaborative Decision-Making. Injury characteristics and contextual factors, like perceived EMS response times and advice from family or medical providers, were considered in choices about EMS utilization and hospital selection. Despite the view that EMS response times were important in determining what to do following injury, both EMS and non-EMS users were largely unfamiliar with the capabilities of EMS in their area. Finally, guardians described cost to be a theoretical risk of EMS use, and a few cited this as a factor contributing to their decision-making.
conclusionsGuardians used a variety of considerations to make transport decisions, including the five themes identified above. Future studies could explore modalities to disseminate information about pre-hospital decision-making for guardians and determine the relationship between EMS utilization and patient outcomes.
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.