ArticleBMC health services research2021
The predictive role of sickness absence spell durations in associations with inpatient- and specialized outpatient care among a population-based Swedish twin sample.
Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe associations between a sickness absence spell duration and patient care have been rarely studied. An assumption is that associations would differ by spell duration and by the patient care type, inpatient- or specialized outpatient, due to severity of diseases and/or conditions. We aimed to investigate sickness absence spells in various spell durations as a predictor for subsequent inpatient- and specialized outpatient care separately, and to study if familial confounding plays a role in these associations.
methodsWe followed a population-based sample of Swedish twins born 1925-90 with national registers from 2001 for first incident sickness absence spell (days to calculate spell duration categorized into ≤30 days, 31-90 days, 91-180 days and ≥ 181 days), or no sickness absence, and for inpatient- and specialized outpatient care until 2013 (n = 24,975). Cox proportional hazards models were applied for hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) while accounting for covariates and familial confounding.
resultsFirst incident sickness absence spell across all duration categories was associated with an increased risk of inpatient- (age- and sex adjusted HR 1.28 to 6.05) or specialized outpatient care (HR 1.17-2.50), both in comparison to those without any sickness absence or the shortest sickness absence spell category (1-30 days). The associations remained statistically significant while controlling for covariates or familial confounding.
conclusionsFirst incident sickness absence spell increases the risk of inpatient care or specialized outpatient care regardless of the duration of the sickness absence spell. Hence, incident sickness absence spells should be noted and targeted to actions at workplaces as well as in primary and occupational health care.
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.