Determinants of emergency department utilisation by older adults in Singapore: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults aged 65 years and above have a disproportionately higher utilization of emergency healthcare, of which Emergency Department (ED) visits are a key component. They experience higher degree of multimorbidity and mobility issues compared to younger patients, and are consequently more likely to experience a health event which requires an ED visit. During their visit, older adults tend to require more extensive workup, therefore spending a greater amount of time in the ED. Compared to the younger population, older adults are more susceptible to adverse events following discharge. Considering these factors, investigating the determinants of ED utilisation would be valuable. In this paper, we present a protocol for a systematic review of the determinants of ED utilisation among communitydwelling older adults aged 65 years and above, applying Andersen and Newman's model of healthcare utilisation. Furthermore, we aim to present other conceptual frameworks for healthcare utilisation and propose a holistic approach for understanding the determinants of ED utilisation by older persons. METHODS: The protocol is developed in accordance with the standards of Campbell Collaboration guidelines for systematic reviews, with reference to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. Medline, Embase and Scopus will be searched for studies published from 2000 to 2020. Studies evaluating more than one determinant for ED utilisation among older adults aged 65 years and above will be included. Search process and selection of studies will be presented in a PRISMA flow chart. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) determinants of ED utilisation will be grouped according to individual and societal determinants. Quality of the studies will be assessed using Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). DISCUSSION: In Andersen and Newman's model, individual determinants include predisposing factors, enabling and illness factors, and societal determinants include technology and social norms. Additional conceptual frameworks for healthcare utilisation include Health Belief Model, Social Determinants of Health and Big Five personality traits. By incorporating the concepts of these models, we hope to develop a holistic approach of conceptualizing the factors that influence ED utilisation among older people. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered on 8 May 2021 with PROSPERO's International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021253770).
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".