↓ Skip to main content

Patterns of Medicare-funded primary health and specialist consultations in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians in the two years before hospitalisation for ischaemic heart disease

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Patterns of Medicare-funded primary health and specialist consultations in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians in the two years before hospitalisation for ischaemic heart disease
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0826-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tiew-Hwa Katherine Teng, Judith M. Katzenellenbogen, Elizabeth Geelhoed, Anthony S. Gunnell, Matthew Knuiman, Frank M. Sanfilippo, Joseph Hung, Qun Mai, Alistair Vickery, Sandra C. Thompson

Abstract

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Patterns of primary and specialist care in patients leading up to the first hospitalisation for IHD potentially impact on prevention and subsequent outcomes. We investigated the differences in general practice (GP), specialist and emergency department (ED) consultations, and associated resource use in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the two years preceding hospitalisation for IHD. Linked-data were used to identify first IHD admissions for Western Australians aged 25-74 years in 2002-2007. Person-linked GP, specialist and ED consultations were obtained from the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and ED records to assess health care access and costs for the preceding 2 years. Aboriginal people constituted 4.7% of 27,230 IHD patients, 3.5% of 1,348,238 MBS records, and 14% of 33,170 ED presentations. Aboriginal (vs. non-Aboriginal) people were younger (mean 50.2 vs 60.5 years), more commonly women (45.2% vs 28.4%), had more comorbidities [Charlson index≥1, 35.2% vs 26.3%], were more likely to have had GP visits (adjusted rate-ratio 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12), long/prolonged (16.0% vs 11.9%) consults and non-vocationally registered GP consults (17.1% vs 3.2%), but less likely to received specialist consults (mean 1.0 vs 4.1). Mean number of urgent/semi-urgent ED presentations in the year preceding the IHD admission was higher in Aboriginal people (2.9 vs 1.9). Aboriginal people incurred 2.7% of total associated MBS expenditure (estimated at $59.7 million). Mean total cost per person was 43.3% lower in Aboriginal patients, with cost differentials being greatest in diabetic and chronic kidney disease patients. Despite being over-represented in urgent/semi-urgent ED presentations and admissions for IHD, Aboriginal people were under-resourced compared with the rest of the population, particularly in terms of specialist care prior to first IHD hospitalisation. The findings underscore the need for better primary and specialist shared care delivery models particularly for Aboriginal people.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 32 35%
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 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,728,305
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#666
of 1,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,363
of 331,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#19
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 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 1,934 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 331,122 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.