ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2024
Public Beliefs About Accessibility and Quality of Emergency Departments in Germany.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Experience of Nursing Professionals with Advanced Practice competencies with triage implementation in Primary Care Emergency Services].Atencion primaria · 2026Article
- Low health literacy is associated with patient-clinician discrepancy in the perceived severity of medical emergencies.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is well established that emergency department (ED) crowding leads to worse health outcomes. Although various patient surveys provide information about reasons to visit EDs, less is known in terms of beliefs about EDs among the general population. This study examines public beliefs regarding accessibility and quality of EDs and their associations with social characteristics (gender, age, education, immigration background) as well as knowledge about emergency care services and health literacy. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study based on a random sample of 2,404 adults living in Hamburg, Germany, in winter 2021/2022. We developed eight statements regarding accessibility and quality of EDs leading to two scales (Cronbach's α accessibility = 0.76 and quality of care = 0.75). Descriptive statistics of the eight items are shown and linear regression were conducted to determine associations of the two scales with social characteristics as well as knowledge about emergency care services and health literacy (HLS-EU-Q6). Results: Nearly 44% of the respondents agreed that "you can always go to an ED, if you do not get a short-term appointment with a general practitioner or specialist." And 38% agreed with the statement, "If you do not have the time during normal practice hours due to your work, you can always go to an ED." In terms of quality, 38% believed that doctors in EDs are more competent than doctors in general practice, and 25% believed that doctors in EDs are more competent than doctors in specialized practices. In the fully adjusted model, public beliefs about emergency care accessibility and quality of EDs were significantly associated with all social characteristics and knowledge of emergency care options with the strongest associations between knowledge and accessibility (β = -0.17; Conclusion: We found endorsement of public beliefs about accessibility and quality of EDs that can lead to inappropriate utilization. Our results also suggest that knowledge of different emergency services plays an important role. Therefore, after system-related reorganizations of emergency care, information campaigns about such services tailored to socially deprived populations may help alleviate the issue of crowding.
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.