ArticleCJEM2024
Parents' perspective on pediatric emergency department visits for low-acuity conditions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional bicentric study.
Article in CJEM, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary care among newborns at a Canadian urban center: an observational study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to describe and compare the motivation of parents/guardians to bring children with low-acuity conditions to a tertiary-care pediatric emergency department (ED) versus a clinic before and after the pandemic. The secondary objectives were to describe and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of the population studied and the impact of the pandemic on their access to primary care services.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study based on a survey administered to parents/guardians of patients presenting with low-acuity conditions at one of two EDs.
resultsThe respondents numbered 659. Children were brought to a pediatric ED generally because of the perceived urgency of the condition, the presumed resource availability in the pediatric ED and the unavailability of the primary care physician. However, most respondents (n = 438, 66.5%) indicated preference for a clinic. More respondents before than during the pandemic reported they had been unable to find a doctor outside the ED (48.6% before COVID vs 26.8% during COVID, p < 0.001) but patients during the pandemic were less likely to seek care in a primary care practice or walk-in clinic (30.0% during COVID vs 48.6% before COVID, p < 0.001). In addition, the number of respondents presenting with symptoms of infection decreased by more than half after the pandemic began while the proportion of musculoskeletal and psychiatric complaints doubled.
conclusionAlthough the pandemic has altered the landscape of presenting complaints and pediatric healthcare-seeking behaviors, most respondents indicated they would prefer to receive care in a clinic. This finding contradicts the view that most pediatric ED visits for low-acuity conditions are by choice rather than perceived necessity. Prioritizing improved access to primary care resources would better address the preferences and expectations of parents/guardians.
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.