Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35661153›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Emergency department utilisation among older adults-Protocol for a systematic review of determinants and conceptual frameworks.

Xuan Rong Tang, Faraz Zarisfi, Pin Pin Pek, Fahad Javaid Siddiqui, Rahul Malhotra, Yu Heng Kwan, Tiah Ling, Andrew Fu Wah Ho, Marcus Eng Hock Ong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Xuan Rong TangYong Loo Lin School of Medicine National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3077-2194
Faraz ZarisfiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Pin Pin PekPrehospital and Emergency Research Centre Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Fahad Javaid SiddiquiPrehospital and Emergency Research Centre Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-9046-5105
Rahul MalhotraDuke-NUS Medical School, Program in Health Services and Systems Research, Singapore, Singapore.
Yu Heng KwanDuke-NUS Medical School, Program in Health Services and Systems Research, Singapore, Singapore.
Tiah LingAccident and Emergency Department, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Andrew Fu Wah HoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Marcus Eng Hock OngDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
SingHealth · SGSingapore General Hospital · SGChangi General Hospital · SGDuke-NUS Medical School · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder adults aged 65 years and above have a disproportionately higher utilization of emergency healthcare, of which Emergency Department (ED) visits are a key component. They experience higher degree of multimorbidity and mobility issues compared to younger patients, and are consequently more likely to experience a health event which requires an ED visit. During their visit, older adults tend to require more extensive workup, therefore spending a greater amount of time in the ED. Compared to the younger population, older adults are more susceptible to adverse events following discharge. Considering these factors, investigating the determinants of ED utilisation would be valuable. In this paper, we present a protocol for a systematic review of the determinants of ED utilisation among communitydwelling older adults aged 65 years and above, applying Andersen and Newman's model of healthcare utilisation. Furthermore, we aim to present other conceptual frameworks for healthcare utilisation and propose a holistic approach for understanding the determinants of ED utilisation by older persons.

methodsThe protocol is developed in accordance with the standards of Campbell Collaboration guidelines for systematic reviews, with reference to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. Medline, Embase and Scopus will be searched for studies published from 2000 to 2020. Studies evaluating more than one determinant for ED utilisation among older adults aged 65 years and above will be included. Search process and selection of studies will be presented in a PRISMA flow chart. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) determinants of ED utilisation will be grouped according to individual and societal determinants. Quality of the studies will be assessed using Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). DISCUSSION: In Andersen and Newman's model, individual determinants include predisposing factors, enabling and illness factors, and societal determinants include technology and social norms. Additional conceptual frameworks for healthcare utilisation include Health Belief Model, Social Determinants of Health and Big Five personality traits. By incorporating the concepts of these models, we hope to develop a holistic approach of conceptualizing the factors that influence ED utilisation among older people. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered on 8 May 2021 with PROSPERO's International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021253770).

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEmergency Service, HospitalAgedAged, 80 and overHumansPatient DischargeSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID35661153
PMCPMC9166351
OpenAlexW4281747473

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.