Trial reportJAMA network open2024
Community Paramedicine Program in Social Housing and Health Service Utilization: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02152891 (A Community Paramedicine Initiative for Older Adults Living in Subsidized Housing), which is not on this 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.
A Community Paramedicine Initiative for Older Adults Living in Subsidized Housing (CHAP-EMS/Renamed to CP@Clinic)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Realist evaluation of the community paramedicine at clinic (CP@clinic) programme in rural Australian community health: protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Clinical endpoints in pragmatic heart failure trials: From data collection to clinical endpoint classification.ESC heart failure · 2025Review
- Global burden of hypertensive heart disease attributable to high body mass index from 1990 to 2021: a multidimensional analysis and public health response.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Community Paramedics in Australia: A Case Study Adapting the Canadian Community Paramedicine at Clinic (CP@clinic) Program in Rural Australia, Using an Implementation Science Approach.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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
Importance: Community Paramedicine at Clinic (CP@clinic) is a chronic disease prevention program that decreases 911 calls for emergency medical services, but its wider system effects are unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effects of CP@clinic vs usual care on individual-level health service utilization outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial evaluated all residents 55 years or older in 30 social housing buildings in Ontario, Canada, that had (1) a unique postal code, (2) at least 50 apartments, (3) 60% or more residents 55 years or older, and (4) a similar building for pairing (15 intervention and 15 control buildings, pair-matched randomization). The 12-month intervention had a staggered start date from January 1, 2015, to December 1, 2015, and ended between December 31, 2015, and November 30, 2016. Administrative health data analysis was conducted in May 2022. Intervention: CP@clinic was a health promotion and disease prevention program led by specially trained community paramedics who held weekly drop-in sessions in social housing buildings. These paramedics conducted 1-on-1 risk assessments, provided health education and referrals to relevant community resources, and, with consent, sent assessments to family physicians. Control buildings received usual care (universal health care, including free primary and specialty medical care). Main Outcome and Measures: Individual-level health service utilization was measured from administrative health data, with ED visits via ambulance as the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included ED visits for any reason, primary care visits, hospitalizations, length of hospital stay, laboratory tests, receipt of home care, transfer to long-term care, and medication initiation. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate intervention effects on individual-level health service utilization, accounting for trial design and individual-level baselines. Results: The 30 social housing buildings had 3695 residents (1846 control and 1849 intervention participants; mean [SD] age, 72.8 [9.1] years; 2400 [65.0%] female). Intention-to-treat analysis found no significant difference in ED visits by ambulance (445 of 1849 [24.1%] vs 463 of 1846 [25.1%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05) but found higher antihypertensive medication initiation (74 of 500 [14.8%] vs 47 of 552 [8.5%]; AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.19-2.53) and lower anticoagulant initiation (48 of 1481 [3.2%] vs 69 of 1442 [4.8%]; AOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86) in the intervention arm vs the control arm. CP@clinic attendance was associated with higher incidence of primary care visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17), higher odds of receiving home care (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13), and lower odds of long-term care transfers (AOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.81). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial of CP@clinic, the intervention did not affect the rate of ED visits by ambulance; however, there were increased primary care visits and connections to home care services, which may have increased antihypertensive medication initiation and reduced long-term care transfers from social housing. Health policymakers should consider CP@clinic's impact as an upstream approach to improve care for older adults with low income. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152891.
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.