-
- R Maheswaran, T Pearson, and M Jiwa.
- Public Health GIS Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK. r.maheswaran@sheffield.ac.uk
- Public Health. 2009 Jul 1; 123 (7): 506-10.
ObjectivesWhilst numerous studies have examined repeat attendance at general practices or emergency departments, little is known about repeat attenders at walk-in centres. The aim of this study was to examine age, gender, socio-economic status, distance from walk-in centre, day and time of attendance in relation to repeat attendance at walk-in centres.Study DesignDescriptive study using routine data from four walk-in centres in England, two of which were located in London and were accessible to local and commuter populations.MethodsData for 2 years (2003-2004) were examined. Age, gender, day and time of attendance were obtained from administrative records. Distance was calculated from the census output area of residence to walk-in centre attended. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (Income Domain) was used as an indicator of socio-economic deprivation at the small-area level.ResultsThirty-nine percent of 272,701 attendances by 166,486 patients were repeat attendances. Seventy percent of patients attended once, 27.9% attended two to five times, and 2.2% attended on over five occasions over the 2-year study period. Patients attending the two London walk-in centres lived closer than those attending the two walk-in centres outside London (percentage living 6 km or more from walk-in centre: 9% and 12% compared with 18% and 22%). The London walk-in centres had a higher percentage of single attenders (74.1% and 78%) compared with the other two walk-in centres (63.3% and 64.7%). Repeat attenders lived closer to walk-in centres than single attenders. Adjusted odds ratios for patients living within 3 km of the walk-in centre relative to patients living 6 km or more from the walk-in centre ranged from 1.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42-1.78] to 3.34 (95% CI 3.12-3.57) for patients attending two to five times, and from 2.37 (95% CI 1.36-4.11) to 14.99 (95% CI 11.30-19.88) for patients with over five attendances. There was substantial variation with significant contrasting patterns in odds ratios across walk-in centres in relation to the other variables. Repeat attenders were older than single attenders at three of the four walk-in centres. Repeat attenders tended to be more likely to be male at two walk-in centres, and less likely to be male at the other two walk-in centres. Socio-economic deprivation tended to be associated with repeat attendance at one of the walk-in centres. There were also significant and contrasting patterns in relation to day and, to a lesser extent, time of attendance.ConclusionsUsers living near walk-in centres are more likely to be repeat attenders. Age, gender, socio-economic deprivation, day and time of attendance had significantly higher or lower odds ratios for repeat attendance at different walk-in centres, suggesting that organizational and other factors may determine patterns of repeat attendance.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.