ArticleJAMA network open2025
Health Care Utilization Patterns Among Adults With or Without Functional Disabilities.
Article in JAMA network open, 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.
- College Attendance, Physical Disability, and Cervical Cancer Screening.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Health Care-Related Determinants of First-Time Long-Term Care Need in Older Adults in Germany: Retrospective Cohort Study Using Claims Data.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Use of Claims Data to Screen for Functional Limitations Among Medicare Beneficiaries.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- Reaching the Unreached: Unmet Needs and the Promise of Telehealth Among People with Mobility Disabilities in Low-Resource Areas in Alabama.Disabilities (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Adults with functional disabilities require more medical care, but it remains unclear whether they use more health services, including high- and low-value services. Objectives: To examine health care utilization by functional disability among US adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed data from the 2013 to 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The sample comprised noninstitutionalized US civilians aged 18 years or older. Statistical analysis was conducted between May and October 2024. Exposures: Self-reported functional disability. Functional disability was assessed through 6 questions on difficulties (with vision, hearing, memory or concentration, walking, self-care, and performing errands) and categorized as no (0 difficulties), moderate (1-2 difficulties), and severe (≥3 difficulties). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outpatient visits, prescription drug fills, 10 high-value services, and 12 low-value services. Results: The sample comprised 188 954 adults (mean [SD] age, 48.1 [17.9] years; 101 706 females [53.8%]). Of these adults, 151 562 (80.2%) had no, 28 518 (15.0%) had moderate, and 8874 (4.6%) had severe functional disabilities. Adults with functional disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities, had a higher percentage of outpatient visits (86.2% vs 74.9%) and prescriptions filled (81.2% vs 64.2%) compared with those with no disabilities. The mean number of outpatient visits and prescription drug fills was significantly higher among those with severe vs no or moderate functional disabilities (outpatient visits: 17.5 [95% CI, 16.5-18.4] vs 8.6 [95% CI, 8.6-8.7] or 14.0 [95% CI, 13.8-14.3]; prescription drug fills: 27.8 [95% CI, 25.7-29.9] vs 10.6 [95% CI, 10.5-10.7] or 18.0 [95% CI, 17.6-18.4], respectively). Compared with adults with no functional disabilities, those with moderate and severe disabilities had higher rates of services that could be performed during an appointment, both high value (eg, adjusted differences, blood pressure measurement: 3.4 [95% CI, 2.9-3.9] percentage points and 3.6 [95% CI, 2.9-4.2] percentage points; cholesterol measurement: 3.6 [95% CI, 2.6-4.5] percentage points and 4.7 [95% CI, 3.6-5.7] percentage points, respectively) and low value (eg, adjusted differences, benzodiazepine for depression: 4.5 [95% CI, 2.5-6.4] percentage points and 8.1 [95% CI, 6.3-9.8] percentage points; opioid for back pain: 4.5 [95% CI, 3.5-5.5] percentage points and 6.7 [95% CI, 6.5-6.9] percentage points, respectively). Conversely, those with moderate and severe disabilities used fewer services that typically required a separate appointment, such as high-value cancer screenings (eg, adjusted differences, breast: -1.1 [95% CI, -1.3 to -0.9] percentage points and -9.9 [95% CI, -12.1 to -7.7] percentage points; cervical: -3.3 [95% CI, -4.9 to -1.7] percentage points and -17.3 [95% CI, -20.3 to -14.4] percentage points, respectively) and low-value cancer screenings (eg, adjusted differences, cervical: -4.9 [95% CI, -7.7 to -2.1] percentage points and -8.1 [95% CI, -12.1 to -4.0] percentage points, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, adults with functional disabilities used higher rates of health services than adults with no functional disabilities. However, the ease of access to services-independent of clinical value-plays an important role in utilization for those with functional disabilities.
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.