ArticleBMJ open2022
Individual and contextual predictors of emergency department visits among community-living older adults: a register-based prospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated With 72-Hour Emergency Department Revisits at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2026Article
- Frequency and predictors of emergency department visits among the oldest old in Finland: the Vitality 90+ Study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Factors associated with overall and high-risk return visits to the emergency department: a vital sign trajectory approach.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Predictors of 15-year transitions across living and care settings in a population of Swedish older adults.Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Receiving home care forms and the risk for emergency department visits in community-dwelling Dutch older adults, a retrospective cohort study using national data.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the extent to which contextual factors explain emergency department (ED) visits and ED revisits, additional to that explained by individual factors.
designA register-based prospective cohort study.
settingSwedish region of Dalarna.
participantsParticipants were 16 543 community-living adults aged 80 or older who were residents of the Dalarna region of Sweden, excluding older adults who moved out of Dalarna or into residential care during the study period. OUTCOME MEASURES: Dependent variables were initial ED visit, and at least one ED revisit within 30 days of an initial ED visit.
resultsApproximately 36% of the participants visited the ED during the study period with 18.9% returning to the ED within 30 days. For both initial ED visits and ED revisits, the addition of contextual factors to models containing individual factors significantly improved model fit (p<0.001; p<0.022) and the amount of variance explained in the outcome. In the final models, initial ED visit was significantly associated with older age, number of chronic diseases, receipt of home help, number of primary care visits, proportion of 80+ in the population and shorter distance to the ED; while an ED revisit was significantly associated with greater use of social care, number of hospital admissions and disposition (discharged; admitted to hospital) at initial ED visit.
conclusionContextual factors explain variance in initial ED visit, additional to that explained by individual factors alone, which indicates inequitable access to ED care. These findings suggest considering local variations in contextual factors in order to improve health-related outcomes among older adults.
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.