How Important Are Parental Age and Educational Level in Nonurgent Admissions to the Pediatric Emergency Department?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of the present study were to investigate the reasons parents prefer the pediatric emergency department for nonurgent admissions and to evaluate the effect of parental age and educational level on nonurgent admissions and the relationship between the reasons for nonurgent admissions and child age. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey at an emergency department of a tertiary care pediatric referral center. A questionnaire that was prepared to understand the reasons underlying nonurgent admissions was administered to the parents of 1033 children who were classified as nonurgent cases using the Pediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (4-5). RESULTS: The most common reasons for nonurgent admissions were the concern for progression in child's complaints, the complaints with an onset outside working hours, and the parental perception that more cautious and better care is provided in the emergency department. The most urgent complaints from the parental perspective included fever (23.1%), vomiting (11.0%), and diarrhea (10.5%), respectively. The mean age of the mothers was 31.1 ± 5.9 years (17-51 years), and the mean age of the fathers was 34.94 ± 6.1 years (20-60 years). Parents younger than 30 years were more likely to prefer the emergency department due to convenience and economic reasons. Nonurgent admissions due to confidence in the emergency department were more frequent among parents who were primary school graduate. CONCLUSIONS: It is critically important to examine why parents prefer the emergency department for nonurgent conditions of their children and to develop solution offers in this regard. The improvements to be made in the emergency department would both prioritize patients requiring urgent care and increase the productivity of emergency department staff.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".