↓ Skip to main content

Motives for self-referral to the emergency department: a systematic review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Motives for self-referral to the emergency department: a systematic review of the literature
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1935-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Kraaijvanger, Henk van Leeuwen, Douwe Rijpsma, Michael Edwards

Abstract

In several western countries patients' use of Emergency Departments (EDs) is increasing. A substantial number of patients is self-referred, but does not need emergency care. In order to have more influence on unnecessary self-referral, it is essential to know why patients visit the ED without referral. The goal of this systematic review therefore is to explore what motivates self-referred patients in those countries to visit the ED. Recommendations from the PRISMA were used to search and analyze the literature. The following databases; PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from inception up to the first of February 2015. The reference lists of the included articles were screened for additional relevant articles. All studies that reported on the motives of self-referred patients to visit an ED were selected. The reasons for self-referral were categorized into seven main themes: health concerns, expected investigations; convenience of the ED; lesser accessibility of primary care; no confidence in general practitioner/primary care; advice from others and financial considerations. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Thirty publications were identified from the literature studied. The most reported themes for self-referral were 'health concerns' and 'expected investigations': 36% (95% Confidence Interval 23-50%) and 35% (95% CI 20-51%) respectively. Financial considerations most often played a role in the United States with a reported percentage of 33% versus 4% in other countries (p < 0.001). Worldwide, the most important reasons to self-refer to an ED are health concerns and expected investigations. Financial considerations mainly play a role in the United States.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 32 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,082,992
of 24,176,243 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,864
of 8,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,514
of 427,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#22
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,176,243 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.