Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39448990›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Validity of the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups system on the utilisation of healthcare services in Norway: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

Rannei Hosar, Gro Rosvold Berntsen, Aslak Steinsbekk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Association Between Telehealth Use and Health Care Costs Among Rural Medicare Fee for Service Beneficiaries During the COVID-19 Pandemic.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rannei HosarDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. rannei.hosar@ntnu.no.
Gro Rosvold BerntsenNorwegian Center for E-Health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Aslak SteinsbekkDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) System is a validated electronic risk stratification system. However, there is a lack of studies on the association between different ACG risk scores and the utilisation of different healthcare services using different sources of input data. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the validity of the association between five different ACG risk scores and the utilisation of a range of different healthcare services using input data from either general practitioners (GPs) or hospitals.

methodsRegistry-based study of all adult inhabitants in four Norwegian municipalities that received somatic healthcare in one year (N = 168 285). The ACG risk scores resource utilisation band, unscaled ACG concurrent risk, unscaled concurrent risk, frailty flag and chronic condition count were calculated using age, sex and diagnosis codes from GPs and a hospital, respectively. Healthcare utilisation covered GP, municipal and hospital services. Areas under the receiver operating curve (AUC) were calculated and compared to the AUC of a model using only age and sex.

resultsUtilisation of all healthcare services increased with increasing scores in the "resource utilisation band" (RUB) and all other investigated ACG risk scores. The risk scores overall distinguished well between levels of utilisation of GP visits (AUC up to 0.84), hospitalisation (AUC up to 0.8) and specialist outpatient visits (AUC up to 0.72), but not out-of-hours GP visits (AUC up to 0.62). The score "unscaled ACG concurrent risk" overall performed best. Risk scores based on data from either GPs or hospitals performed better for the classification of healthcare services in their respective domains. The model based on age and sex performed better for distinguishing between levels of utilisation of municipal services (AUC 0.83-0.90 compared to 0.46-0.79).

conclusionsRisk scores from the ACG system is valid for classifying GP visits, hospitalisation and specialist outpatient visits. It does not outperform simpler models in the classification of utilisation of municipal services such as nursing homes and home services and outpatient emergency care in primary healthcare. The ACG system can be applied in Norway using administrative data from either GPs or hospitals.

Indexed as

RegistriesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnosis-Related GroupsFemaleHealth ServicesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPatient Acceptance of Health CareRetrospective StudiesRisk AdjustmentRisk AssessmentACG systemAdjusted clinical groupsGeneral practitionerHospitalPopulation health managementRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID39448990
PMCPMC11515438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.