ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2025
Impact of socioeconomic status on utilisation of a Virtual Emergency Department: An exploratory analysis.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2025. 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.
- Outcomes of a state-wide virtual emergency department in Victoria, Australia: a linked data analysis of emergency department utilisation and hospital use.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- Patterns of specialist healthcare delivery among inflammatory bowel disease patients in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario: a population-based study.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Bone, muscle, and physical function measures in older adults according to levels of social disadvantage: a cross-sectional study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a virtual emergency care service to avoid unnecessary emergency department presentations and provide specialist-led definitive care.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore whether utilisation of a Virtual Emergency Department (VVED) differs according to socioeconomic status (SES).
methodsA retrospective analysis was undertaken of data from the VVED - a telehealth service that provides care for patients across Victoria, Australia with non-life-threatening emergencies. The study included all individuals who presented to the VVED between July 2022 and June 2023 through the two most common referral pathways (self-referral and ambulance referral). Area-level SES was ascertained by matching residential postcodes to the corresponding Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) decile. IRSAD scores were divided into quintiles (1 = lowest SES, 5 = highest SES) and multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to analyse associations between the SES quintile and referral pathway, presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThere were 68 598 participants included in the analyses (mean age: 36.6 years; 58.4% female). Compared to SES quintile 3, higher odds of self-referral to the VVED were observed in the two most advantaged SES groups (Quintile 4; adjusted OR [aOR] = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.26; P = 0.001) (Quintile 5; aOR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.25-1.52; P < 0.001). Conversely, lower odds of self-referral were observed in the most disadvantaged SES group (Quintile 1; aOR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.75-0.90; P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe present study demonstrated a relatively even utilisation of the VVED service across SES population groups. The use of healthcare provider pathways, such as ambulance paramedics, may increase equitable access to telehealth. Clinical attention should be directed toward specific social groups in the emergency care setting.
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.