ArticleBMC family practice2003
Measuring access to primary care appointments: a review of methods.
Article in BMC family practice, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measures of the Availability and Accessibility of Behavioral Health Services: A Scoping Review.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
- The Impact of Changing From a 6+2 to a 3+1 Residency Block Schedule on Patient Access and Other Outcomes.Journal of graduate medical education · 2024Article
- Content Validity of a Scale Designed to Measure the Access of Older Adults to Outpatient Health Services.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Improving access to primary care: a mixed-methods approach studying a new review appointment system in a Scottish GP practice.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Perspective: Identifying and Addressing Disparities in Surgical Access: A Health Systems Call to Action.Annals of surgery · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the implementation and associated effects of advanced access in university family medicine groups: a study protocol.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- How patient acceptability affects access to breast reconstruction: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Survey Instruments to Assess Patient Experiences With Access and Coordination Across Health Care Settings: Available and Needed Measures.Medical care · 2017Review
- Identification of genetic counseling service delivery models in practice: a report from the NSGC Service Delivery Model Task Force.Journal of genetic counseling · 2013Article
- Advanced access appointments: Effects on family physician satisfaction, physicians' office income, and emergency department use.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2010Article
- Article
- Help-seeking behaviour in dysmenorrhoea: A cross-sectional exploration using the Behavioural Model of Health Services Use.Women's health (London, England)Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient access to primary care appointments is not routinely measured despite the increasing interest in this aspect of practice activity. The generation of standardised data (or benchmarks) for access could inform developments within primary care organisations and act as a quality marker for clinical governance. Logically the setting of targets should be based on a sound system of measurement. The practicalities of developing appropriate measures need debate. Therefore we aimed to search for and compare methods that have been published or are being developed to measure patient access to primary care appointments, with particular focus on finding methods using appointment system data.
methodA search and review was made of the primary care literature from 1990 to 2001, which included an assessment of online resources (websites) and communication with recognised experts. The identified methods were assessed.
resultsThe published literature in this specific area was not extensive but revealed emerging interest in the late 1990s. Two broad approaches to the measurement of waiting times to GP appointments were identified. Firstly, appointment systems in primary care organisations were analysed in differing ways to provide numerical data and, secondly, patient perceptions (reports) of access were evaluated using survey techniques. Six different methods were found which were based on appointment systems data.
conclusionThe two approaches of either using patient questionnaires or appointment system data are methods that represent entirely different aims. The latter method when used to represent patient waiting times for 'routine' elective appointments seems to hold promise as a useful tool and this avoids the definitional problems that surround 'urgent' appointments. The purpose for which the data is being collected needs to be borne in mind and will determine the chosen methods of data retrieval and representation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.