Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12846934›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2003

Measuring access to primary care appointments: a review of methods.

Wendy Jones, Glyn Elwyn, Peter Edwards, Adrian Edwards, Melody Emmerson, Richard Hibbs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Wendy JonesDepartment of Primary Care, The Clinical School, University of Wales Swansea, UK. wendy@ystradowen.demon.co.uk
Glyn Elwyn
Peter Edwards
Adrian Edwards
Melody Emmerson
Richard Hibbs

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health Services AccessibilityPrimary Health CareAppointments and SchedulesHealth Services ResearchHumansPatient SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID12846934
PMCPMC169167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.