↓ Skip to main content

The Association of Health Literacy With Preventable Emergency Department Visits: A Cross‐sectional Study

Overview of attention for article published in Academic Emergency Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
18 X users

Readers on

mendeley
163 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.
Article details
Title
The Association of Health Literacy With Preventable Emergency Department Visits: A Cross‐sectional Study
Published in
Academic Emergency Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.1111/acem.13244
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Policy-makers argue that emergency department (ED) visits for conditions preventable with high-quality outpatient care contribute to waste in the healthcare system. However, access to ambulatory care is uneven, especially for vulnerable populations like minorities, the poor and those with limited health literacy. The impact of limited health literacy on ED visits that are preventable with timely, high-quality ambulatory care is unknown. To determine the association of health literacy and preventable ED visits. We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of potentially preventable ED visits (outcome) among adults (≥18 years old) in an ED serving an urban community. We assessed health literacy (predictor) through structured interviews with the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM). We recorded age, sex, race, employment, payer, marital and health status, and number of comorbidities through structured interviews or electronic record review. We identified potentially preventable ED visits in the two years prior to the index ED visit by applying Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality technical specifications to identify ambulatory care sensitive conditions using ED discharge diagnoses in hospital administrative data. We used Poisson regression to evaluate the number of preventable ED visits among patients with limited (REALM < 61), versus adequate (REALM ≥ 61), health literacy after adjusting for covariates. Of 1,201 participants, 709 (59%) were female, 370 (31%) were African American, mean age was 41.6 years, and 394 (33%) had limited health literacy. Out of 4,444 total ED visits, 423 (9.5%) were potentially preventable. Of these, 260 (61%) resulted in hospital admission and 163 (39%) were treat-and-release. After adjusting for covariates, patients with limited literacy had 2.3 (95% CI 1.7-3.1) times the number of potentially preventable ED visits resulting in hospital admission compared to individuals with adequate health literacy, 1.4 (95%CI 1.0-2.0) times the number of treat-and-release visits, and 1.9 (95% CI 1.5-2.4) times the number of total preventable ED visits. Our results suggest that the ED may be an important site to deploy universal literacy-sensitive precautions and to test literacy-sensitive interventions with the goal of reducing the burden of potentially preventable ED visits on patients and the healthcare system. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 163 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 66 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 18%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Psychology 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 69 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#950,010
of 29,698,267 outputs
Outputs from Academic Emergency Medicine
#210
of 4,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,783
of 337,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Emergency Medicine
#5
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,698,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 337,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.