ArticleBMC public health2021
The role of sickness absence diagnosis for the risk of future inpatient- or specialized outpatient care in a Swedish population-based twin sample.
Article in BMC public health, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies of consequences of sickness absence such as health and well-being have been rare whereas risk factors for sickness absence have been studied extensively. This study assumed the consequences of sickness absence would differ by diagnostic group or by patient care type. The aim was to investigate sickness absence due to various diagnosis groups as a predictor for subsequent inpatient- and specialized outpatient care while controlling for familial confounding.
methodsWe utilized the register data of 69,552 twin individuals between 16 and 80 years of age (48% women). The first incident sickness absence spell, from baseline year 2005, including diagnosis of sickness absence was our primary exposure of interest and we followed them until the first incident inpatient- and specialized outpatient care episode with main diagnosis code or until 31.12.2013.
resultsA total of 7464 incident sickness absence spells took place (11%), 42% had inpatient care and 83% specialized outpatient care (mean follow-up time 3.2 years, SD 3.1 years). All the main sickness absence diagnosis groups were associated with increased risk of future care in comparison to no sickness absence. Controlling for confounders attenuated the associations in magnitude but with retaining direction, and we could not confirm an effect of familial factors.
conclusionsSickness absence predicts both inpatient- and specialized outpatient care and the association is universal across diagnosis groups. The lower survival time and incidence rates of inpatient than specialized outpatient care point towards severity of diseases assumption. This finding was also universal across sickness absence diagnosis groups.
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.