ArticleSpinal cord2024
Unmet healthcare needs, access to services and experiences with health providers among persons with spinal cord injury in Australia.
Article in Spinal cord, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'From Superman to Barely Can:' The Experience of Ageing for Australians With Spinal Cord Injury Sustained Below the Age of 65-A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Trends in the supply of spinal cord injury medicine physicians in the united states: an evolving human resource shortfall.Spinal cord · 2026Article
- "What standard should we set?": A qualitative study of rehabilitation professionals' perspectives on rehabilitation needs after traumatic injuries.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- What drives psychotherapists' willingness to treat individuals with spinal cord injury? A cross-sectional study from Germany.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designCross-sectional survey.
objectivesAppropriate and timely lifelong access to healthcare following a spinal cord injury (SCI) is critical, yet unmet healthcare needs in this population are common. Poor experiences with healthcare providers can be a barrier to health-seeking behaviour, and we hypothesised that there would be an association between unmet healthcare needs and care experiences. This study aimed to: (1) describe healthcare provider utilisation in the past year, unmet care needs and satisfaction with healthcare services; (2) explore the association between experiences with healthcare providers and unmet healthcare needs; and (3) explore the association between healthcare provider utilisation and participant characteristics, including unmet healthcare needs.
settingCommunity.
methodsAnalysis of data for 1579 Australians aged ≥ 18, who were ≥ 1-year post-SCI and living in the community. Bayesian penalised regression was used to model six binary outcomes: unmet healthcare needs; the use of general practitioners (GPs), allied health practitioners, rehabilitation specialists; medical specialists; and hospitalisations in the past 12-months.
resultsUnmet needs were reported by 17% of participants, with service cost the common deterrent. There was evidence of an effect for provider experiences on unmet healthcare needs, but no evidence that unmet healthcare needs was associated with the use of GPs, allied health practitioners, and rehabilitation or medical specialists.
conclusionsUnmet healthcare needs were reported in the context of high healthcare use and large proportions of secondary conditions in a cohort with long-term SCI. Improved health access for people with SCI include better primary-secondary care collaboration is needed.
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.