ArticleScandinavian journal of public health2024
Identifying individuals with complex and long-term health-care needs using the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups System: A comparison of data from primary and specialist health care.
Article in Scandinavian journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using general practice data for chronic disease prevalence: the impact of record linkage on estimation accuracy.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Beyond Diagnosis and Comorbidities-A Scoping Review of the Best Tools to Measure Complexity for Populations with Mental Illness.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to present the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) System risk stratification profile of a total adult population of somatic health-care users when using data from either general practitioners (GPs) or hospital services and to compare the number and characteristics of individuals identified as having complex and long-term health-care needs in each data source.
methodsThis was a registry-based study that included all adult residents (
resultsNearly nine out of 10 (83.9%) of the population had been in contact with a GP, and 35.4% with the hospital. The mean number of diagnoses (3.0) was equal in both sources. A larger proportion of the population had higher risk scores in all variables except frailty when comparing hospital data to GP data. This was also found when comparing individuals identified as having complex and long-term health-care needs. A similar proportion of the population was found to have complex and long-term health-care needs (hospital 6.7%, GP 6.3%), but only one in five (21.5%) were identified in both data sets.
conclusions
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.