Back

Driving Factors in Pediatric Emergency Department Use: an Ecological Retrospective Study

Mongin, D.; Spechbach, H.; Marti, J.; Ehrler, F.; Siebert, J. N.

2025-08-21 pediatrics
10.1101/2025.08.18.25333899 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPediatric emergency departments (PEDs) often face high volumes of low-acuity visits, reflecting gaps in primary care access and socio-economic disparities. We investigated how neighborhood socio-economic vulnerability, pediatrician availability, and proximity to the PED jointly influence PED utilization in Geneva, Switzerland. MethodsIn this retrospective ecological study (Jan 2023-Dec 2024), we aggregated all PED visits for children aged 0-16 years by neighborhood and Canadian Triage Acuity Scale (CTAS) level. Neighborhood visit incidence (unique patients per child population) was modeled using mixed-effects regression against a composite socio-economic vulnerability index (NSVI), pediatrician density within a 2 km radius, and distance to the PED, incorporating an exponential decay function for distance and postal code as a random intercept. ResultsThere were 68,482 PED visits by 35,994 children (35.1% of Geneva under-16 population). Low-acuity visits (CTAS 4-5) comprised [~]50% of encounters. Both distance and socio-economic vulnerability showed clear dose-response relationships, with stronger effects observed for lower-acuity visits, and no interaction effect between them. Overall, proximity accounted for up to 20.8% of non-urgent PED use, while neighborhood socio-economic vulnerability explained up to 19.7% of low acuity visits across Geneva. Pediatrician density showed a modest inverse association for low-acuity visits only. ConclusionsBoth proximity and socio-economic vulnerability are independent determinants of non-urgent PED use. Policies focusing only on primary care access risk missing key drivers of PED use, highlighting the need for locally tailored strategies such as community outreach near hospitals or programs to strengthen health literacy among families. SummaryProximity and socio-economic vulnerability each explain up to 20% of non-urgent pediatric emergency visits, highlighting major contextual drivers of avoidable care use. Whats Known on This SubjectPediatric emergency department crowding, often driven by low-acuity visits, has been linked to socio-economic disadvantage, poor primary care access, and proximity. Yet, few studies have jointly examined these factors or compared their impact within a universal healthcare setting. What This Study AddsThis study disentangles the effects of distance, socio-economic vulnerability, and pediatrician density on PED use. Proximity and disadvantage each explain [~]20% of low-acuity visits, while pediatrician density has limited impact, highlighting the need for targeted, locally adapted interventions.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
34.9%
2
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.9%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
5
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
6
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
7
Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.7%
9
Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
10
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
13
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
14
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
15
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
16
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
17
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
18
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
21
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.7%
22
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%