Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32718317›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health geographics2020

Prediction of hospital visits for the general inpatient care using floating catchment area methods: a reconceptualization of spatial accessibility.

J Bauer, D Klingelhöfer, W Maier, L Schwettmann, D A Groneberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health geographics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Driving time drives the hospital choice: choice models for pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Italy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  4. Flow-Sizing Critical Care Resources.Critical care medicine · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

J BauerDivision of Health Services Research, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany. j.bauer@med.uni-frankfurt.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6267-9731
D KlingelhöferDivision of Health Services Research, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
W MaierInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München-German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
L SchwettmannInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München-German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
D A GronebergDivision of Health Services Research, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe adequate allocation of inpatient care resources requires assumptions about the need for health care and how this need will be met. However, in current practice, these assumptions are often based on outdated methods (e.g. Hill-Burton Formula). This study evaluated floating catchment area (FCA) methods, which have been applied as measures of spatial accessibility, focusing on their ability to predict the need for health care in the inpatient sector in Germany.

methodsWe tested three FCA methods (enhanced (E2SFCA), modified (M2SFCA) and integrated (iFCA)) for their accuracy in predicting hospital visits regarding six medical diagnoses (atrial flutter/fibrillation, heart failure, femoral fracture, gonarthrosis, stroke, and epilepsy) on national level in Germany. We further used the closest provider approach for benchmark purposes. The predicted visits were compared with the actual visits for all six diagnoses using a correlation analysis and a maximum error from the actual visits of ± 5%, ± 10% and ± 15%.

resultsThe analysis of 229 million distances between hospitals and population locations revealed a high and significant correlation of predicted with actual visits for all three FCA methods across all six diagnoses up to ρ = 0.79 (p < 0.001). Overall, all FCA methods showed a substantially higher correlation with actual hospital visits compared to the closest provider approach (up to ρ = 0.51; p < 0.001). Allowing a 5% error of the absolute values, the analysis revealed up to 13.4% correctly predicted hospital visits using the FCA methods (15% error: up to 32.5% correctly predicted hospital). Finally, the potential of the FCA methods could be revealed by using the actual hospital visits as the measure of hospital attractiveness, which returned very strong correlations with the actual hospital visits up to ρ = 0.99 (p < 0.001).

conclusionWe were able to demonstrate the impact of FCA measures regarding the prediction of hospital visits in non-emergency settings, and their superiority over commonly used methods (i.e. closest provider). However, hospital beds were inadequate as the measure of hospital attractiveness resulting in low accuracy of predicted hospital visits. More reliable measures must be integrated within the proposed methods. Still, this study strengthens the possibilities of FCA methods in health care planning beyond their original application in measuring spatial accessibility.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityInpatientsCatchment Area, HealthGermanyHospitalsHumansFloating catchment areaHospital visitsNeedPredictionSpatial accessibility

Identifiers

PMID32718317
PMCPMC7384227

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.