25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The relationship between avoidable hospitalization and accessibility to primary care: a systematic review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Avoidable hospitalization (AH) has been widely studied as a possible measure of the performance of primary health care (PHC). However, studies examining the relationship between the efficiency and quality of PHC and AH have found mixed results. Our study aims at highlighting those factors related to the relationship between AH and accessibility to PHC in different countries. We conducted a systematic search for peer-reviewed studies published between 1990 and October 2010 in English, German, French, Italian or Spanish and indexed primary electronic databases. The final analysis was conducted on the basis of 51 papers. Of them, 72.5% revealed a significant inverse association between the indicator of PHC accessibility and rates of AH. Indicators of PHC calculated at individual level are more likely to reveal contradictory aspects of the relationship between rates of AH and indicators of quality and PHC accessibility. Most studies confirmed the expected relationship between indicators of PHC accessibility and hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs), showing lower hospitalization rates for ACSC in areas with greater access to PHC. The findings support the use of ACSC hospitalization as an indicator of primary care quality, with the precaution of applying appropriate adjustment factors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The breadth of primary care: a systematic literature review of its core dimensions

          Background Even though there is general agreement that primary care is the linchpin of effective health care delivery, to date no efforts have been made to systematically review the scientific evidence supporting this supposition. The aim of this study was to examine the breadth of primary care by identifying its core dimensions and to assess the evidence for their interrelations and their relevance to outcomes at (primary) health system level. Methods A systematic review of the primary care literature was carried out, restricted to English language journals reporting original research or systematic reviews. Studies published between 2003 and July 2008 were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, King's Fund Database, IDEAS Database, and EconLit. Results Eighty-five studies were identified. This review was able to provide insight in the complexity of primary care as a multidimensional system, by identifying ten core dimensions that constitute a primary care system. The structure of a primary care system consists of three dimensions: 1. governance; 2. economic conditions; and 3. workforce development. The primary care process is determined by four dimensions: 4. access; 5. continuity of care; 6. coordination of care; and 7. comprehensiveness of care. The outcome of a primary care system includes three dimensions: 8. quality of care; 9. efficiency care; and 10. equity in health. There is a considerable evidence base showing that primary care contributes through its dimensions to overall health system performance and health. Conclusions A primary care system can be defined and approached as a multidimensional system contributing to overall health system performance and health.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of socioeconomic status on hospital use in New York City

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How to write a systematic review.

              Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the combination of the best available research evidence with clinical experience and patient needs. The concept of EBM as a part of clinical decision making has become increasingly popular over the last decade. In the hierarchy of studies meta-analysis and systematic reviews occupy the highest levels. A systematic review of a clinical question can be performed by following a relatively standard form. These techniques as described here can be performed without formal training. Systematic reviews conducted in this fashion can be used as a higher form of current concepts or as review articles and replace the traditional expert opinion narrative review.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                European Journal of Public Health
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1464-360X
                1101-1262
                June 2013
                June 01 2013
                May 29 2012
                June 2013
                June 01 2013
                May 29 2012
                : 23
                : 3
                : 356-360
                Article
                10.1093/eurpub/cks053
                22645236
                d0171fc8-c11d-4b82-9b0d-376e76c3fc72
                © 2012
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article