Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34598672›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

First contact of care for persons with spinal cord injury: a general practitioner or a spinal cord injury specialist?

Dima Touhami, Mirjam Brach, Stefan Essig, Elias Ronca, Isabelle Debecker, Inge Eriks-Hoogland, Anke Scheel-Sailer, Nadja Münzel, Armin Gemperli

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The healthcare needs and general practice utilization of people with acquired neurological disability and complex needs: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dima TouhamiDepartment of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002, Lucerne, Switzerland. dima.touhami@paraplegie.ch.ORCID 0000-0003-4598-8932
Mirjam BrachDepartment of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Stefan EssigDepartment of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Elias RoncaDepartment of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Isabelle DebeckerREHAB Basel, 4055, Basel, Switzerland.
Inge Eriks-HooglandSwiss Paraplegic Center, 6207, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Anke Scheel-SailerDepartment of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Nadja MünzelParaHelp, 6207, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Armin GemperliDepartment of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002, Lucerne, Switzerland.
University of Lucerne · CHSwiss Paraplegic Center · CHSwiss Paraplegic Research · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough general practitioners (GPs) are generally considered as the first point of contact for care, this may be different for persons with complex conditions, such as those with spinal cord injury (SCI). The objective of this study is to understand the differences in long-term care provision by GPs and SCI-specialists, by examining (1) the first contact of care for SCI health problems, (2) the morbidity profile and use of health-care services in relation to first contact, and (3) the factors associated with the choice of first contact.

methodsIn this cross-sectional study based on data derived from the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study Community Survey 2017, the main outcome measure was the reported first contact for SCI-specific care. This information was analysed using the chi-square test and logistic regression analysis of groups based on patient characteristics, use of health-care services and secondary health conditions assessed using the Spinal Cord Injury Secondary Conditions Scale (SCI-SCS).

resultsOut of 1294 respondents, 1095 reported their first contact for SCI-specific care; 56% indicated SCI-specialists and 44% specified GPs. On average, participants who first contacted a GP reported higher number of GP consultations (5.1 ± 5.2 vs. 3.9 ± 7.2), planned visits to ambulatory clinics (3.7 ± 7.3 vs. 3.6 ± 6.7) and hospital admissions (GP, 1.9 ± 1.7 vs. 1.5 ± 1.3), but lower number of visits to SCI-specialists (1.7 ± 1.8 vs. 2.6 ± 1.7) and of hospital days (22.8 ± 43.2 vs. 31.0 ± 42.8). The likelihood to contact a GP first was significantly higher in persons ≥75 years old (OR = 4.44, 95% CI = 1.85-10.69), Italian speakers (OR = 5.06, 95% CI = 2.44-10.47), had incomplete lesions (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.71-3.35), experiencing pain (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.04-2.09) or diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.05-3.27), but lower for those situated closer to SCI centres (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.51-0.93) or had higher SCI-SCS scores (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.86-0.99).

conclusionAge, language region, travel distance to SCI centres, lesion completeness, and occurrence of secondary conditions play a significant role in determining the choice of first contact of care, however there is still some unwarranted variation that remains unclear and requires further research.

Indexed as

General PractitionersSpinal Cord InjuriesAgedCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesFirst contact of careGeneral practitionerSCI-specialistSecondary health conditionsSpinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID34598672
PMCPMC8487149
OpenAlexW3131829643

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.