↓ Skip to main content

Characterizing the vulnerability of frequent emergency department users by applying a conceptual framework: a controlled, cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Characterizing the vulnerability of frequent emergency department users by applying a conceptual framework: a controlled, cross-sectional study
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0277-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Bodenmann, Stéphanie Baggio, Katia Iglesias, Fabrice Althaus, Venetia-Sofia Velonaki, Stephanie Stucki, Corine Ansermet, Sophie Paroz, Lionel Trueb, Olivier Hugli, Judith L. Griffin, Jean-Bernard Daeppen

Abstract

Frequent emergency department (ED) users meet several of the criteria of vulnerability, but this needs to be further examined taking into consideration all vulnerability's different dimensions. This study aimed to characterize frequent ED users and to define risk factors of frequent ED use within a universal health care coverage system, applying a conceptual framework of vulnerability. A controlled, cross-sectional study comparing frequent ED users to a control group of non-frequent users was conducted at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Frequent users were defined as patients with five or more visits to the ED in the previous 12 months. The two groups were compared using validated scales for each one of the five dimensions of an innovative conceptual framework: socio-demographic characteristics; somatic, mental, and risk-behavior indicators; and use of health care services. Independent t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Pearson's Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were used for the comparison. To examine the -related to vulnerability- risk factors for being a frequent ED user, univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used. We compared 226 frequent users and 173 controls. Frequent users had more vulnerabilities in all five dimensions of the conceptual framework. They were younger, and more often immigrants from low/middle-income countries or unemployed, had more somatic and psychiatric comorbidities, were more often tobacco users, and had more primary care physician (PCP) visits. The most significant frequent ED use risk factors were a history of more than three hospital admissions in the previous 12 months (adj OR:23.2, 95%CI = 9.1-59.2), the absence of a PCP (adj OR:8.4, 95%CI = 2.1-32.7), living less than 5 km from an ED (adj OR:4.4, 95%CI = 2.1-9.0), and household income lower than USD 2,800/month (adj OR:4.3, 95%CI = 2.0-9.2). Frequent ED users within a universal health coverage system form a highly vulnerable population, when taking into account all five dimensions of a conceptual framework of vulnerability. The predictive factors identified could be useful in the early detection of future frequent users, in order to address their specific needs and decrease vulnerability, a key priority for health care policy makers. Application of the conceptual framework in future research is warranted.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 25%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Other 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 32 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 15%
Psychology 9 7%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 35 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 November 2023.
All research outputs
#8,496,461
of 25,345,468 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,336
of 2,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,007
of 402,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#35
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,345,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 402,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.