Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36151267›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Forecasting admissions in psychiatric hospitals before and during Covid-19: a retrospective study with routine data.

J Wolff, A Klimke, M Marschollek, T Kacprowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

J WolffPeter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics of TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. wolff.jan@mh-hannover.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2750-0606
A KlimkeVitos Hochtaunus, Friedrichsdorf, Emil-Sioli-Weg 1-3, 61381, Friedrichsdorf, Germany.
M MarschollekPeter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics of TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
T KacprowskiDivision Data Science in Biomedicine, Peter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics of TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, TU Braunschweig, Rebenring 56, 38106, Braunschweig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has strong effects on most health care systems. Forecasting of admissions can help for the efficient organisation of hospital care. We aimed to forecast the number of admissions to psychiatric hospitals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and we compared the performance of machine learning models and time series models. This would eventually allow to support timely resource allocation for optimal treatment of patients. We used admission data from 9 psychiatric hospitals in Germany between 2017 and 2020. We compared machine learning models with time series models in weekly, monthly and yearly forecasting before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 90,686 admissions were analysed. The models explained up to 90% of variance in hospital admissions in 2019 and 75% in 2020 with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The best models substantially outperformed a one-step seasonal naïve forecast (seasonal mean absolute scaled error (sMASE) 2019: 0.59, 2020: 0.76). The best model in 2019 was a machine learning model (elastic net, mean absolute error (MAE): 7.25). The best model in 2020 was a time series model (exponential smoothing state space model with Box-Cox transformation, ARMA errors and trend and seasonal components, MAE: 10.44). Models forecasting admissions one week in advance did not perform better than monthly and yearly models in 2019 but they did in 2020. The most important features for the machine learning models were calendrical variables. Model performance did not vary much between different modelling approaches before the COVID-19 pandemic and established forecasts were substantially better than one-step seasonal naïve forecasts. However, weekly time series models adjusted quicker to the COVID-19 related shock effects. In practice, multiple individual forecast horizons could be used simultaneously, such as a yearly model to achieve early forecasts for a long planning period and weekly models to adjust quicker to sudden changes.

Indexed as

COVID-19ForecastingHospitals, PsychiatricHumansPandemicsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36151267
PMCPMC9508170

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.