ArticleHealth services insights2024
Identifying Patient Subpopulations with Significant Race-Sex Differences in Emergency Department Disposition Decisions.
Article in Health services insights, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background/objectives: The race-sex differences in emergency department (ED) disposition decisions have been reported widely. Our objective is to identify demographic and clinical subgroups for which this difference is most pronounced, which will facilitate future targeted research on potential disparities and interventions. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 93 987 White and African-American adults assigned an Emergency Severity Index of 3 at 3 large EDs from January 2019 to February 2020. Using random forests, we identified the Elixhauser comorbidity score, age, and insurance status as important variables to divide data into subpopulations. Logistic regression models were then fitted to test race-sex differences within each subpopulation while controlling for other patient characteristics and ED conditions. Results: In each subpopulation, African-American women were less likely to be admitted than White men with odds ratios as low as 0.304 (95% confidence interval (CI): [0.229, 0.404]). African-American men had smaller admission odds compared to White men in subpopulations of 41+ years of age or with very low/high Elixhauser scores, odds ratios being as low as 0.652 (CI: [0.590, 0.747]). White women were less likely to be admitted than White men in subpopulations of 18 to 40 or 41 to 64 years of age, with low Elixhauser scores, or with Self-Pay or Medicaid insurance status with odds ratios as low as 0.574 (CI: [0.421, 0.784]). Conclusions: While differences in likelihood of admission were lessened by younger age for African-American men, and by older age, higher Elixhauser score, and Medicare or Commercial insurance for White women, they persisted in all subgroups for African-American women. In general, patients of age 64 years or younger, with low comorbidity scores, or with Medicaid or no insurance appeared most prone to potential disparities in admissions.
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.