ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2025
School-Based Health Centers and the Utilization of Primary Care in Rural Communities.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- School and Healthcare Collaboration in Implementing and Sustaining School-Based Health Centers in Rural Communities.The Journal of school health · 2026Article
- "Sacred ground for kids": Institutional perspectives on rural school-based health centers as patient-centered medical homes.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSchool-based health centers (SBHCs) in rural communities improve students' access to primary care, but evidence on service utilization patterns is limited.
methodsThe 2011-2017 electronic health record data for students (aged 5-18 years) who used primary care were analyzed to compare utilization patterns (total number of office visits, well-child, immunization, chronic-condition visits) in a 4-county rural region of New York. Students were categorized into no-SBHC-access (living in school districts without SBHCs) and SBHC-access (living in districts with SBHCs). Students with SBHC-access were further categorized into SBHC-non-users (with SBHCs access but not using SBHCs), SBHC-only-users (only using SBHCs), and hybrid users (using SBHCs and other primary care providers). Treatment effects of SBHC-access and usage categories were estimated, adjusting for age, sex (defined in health record), year, community-level socioeconomic factors, and student/school district random effects. Hybrid-users' visits were stratified by site (SBHCs versus non-SBHCs clinic). Analyses were performed in 2025.
resultsStudents with SBHC access included 24% SBHC-non-users, 52% SBHC-only-users , and 24% hybrid users. SBHC-access category was associated with greater primary care utilization than no-SBHC-access category. Results differed within SBHC-access: hybrid users had the highest utilization, whereas SBHC-non-users had the lowest. SBHC-only-users had more office visits and were more likely to have immunizations than students without SBHCs access. Hybrid users had more office visits and immunizations at SBHCs than at other primary care clinics.
conclusionsSBHCs increased overall office visits and immunizations among students using primary care in this rural region. Promoting SBHCs enrollment and use is important because effects were seen only among students who utilized the SBHCs.
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.