ArticleBMJ open2025
Association between hospitalisations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions and primary healthcare physician specialisation: a longitudinal ecological study in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of potentially avoidable hospitalizations in Ningxia, China: application of a China-specific ACSCs list.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
objectivesAmbulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are conditions for which the provision of timely and skilled primary care can reduce risks of hospitalisation when preventing, treating or controlling a disease. For this reason, hospitalisations for ACSC have been commonly employed by health systems as an indicator of effectiveness for the primary level of care. This study aims to evaluate whether the provision of primary care services by physicians with residency training in family medicine is associated with rates of general hospitalisations for ACSCs in the Brazilian Unified Health System network in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
designLongitudinal ecological study using a Generalised Linear Model for Gamma-distributed variables.
settingPrimary healthcare centres in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, from January 2017 to December 2021, aggregated at the primary healthcare centres level.
participantsData aggregated at the primary healthcare centre level, encompassing socioeconomic, professional and health-related variables. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence rates of hospitalisations for ACSCs, adjusted for age and sex.
resultsAfter adjusting for age, sex and socioeconomic variables using the Health Vulnerability Index, a higher concentration of family physicians was significantly associated with a lower incidence of hospitalisations for ACSCs. If all physicians in the primary care network were family physicians, compared with a scenario in which none were, an estimated 11.89% reduction in hospitalisations would be expected (95% CI 7.3% to 16.3%, p<0.05). Subgroup analyses confirmed these results across different levels of social vulnerability (low, medium, high, very high), time periods (prepandemic: 9.59% reduction; 95% CI 3.80% to 15.00%, p<0.05; pandemic: 15.93% reduction; 95% CI 9.76% to 20.91%, p<0.05) and groups of causes of hospitalisation (eg, diabetes: 32.80% reduction; 95% CI 22.5% to 41.7%, p<0.05). Furthermore, an estimated 10.58% reduction in hospitalisation costs was observed (95% CI 2.60% to 17.90%, p<0.05).
conclusionsThe findings suggest that specialisation in family medicine positively impacts health outcomes by reducing hospitalisations for ACSCs. These results can inform the development of evidence-based public policies to enhance primary care effectiveness.
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.