Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17328816›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2007

The acceptability of waiting times for elective general surgery and the appropriateness of prioritising patients.

Jurriaan P Oudhoff, Danielle R M Timmermans, Martin Rietberg, Dirk L Knol, Gerrit van der Wal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Surgical waiting times and patient choice: how much delay do patients really want?European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2015
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Waiting for surgery from the patient perspective.Psychology research and behavior management · 2009
    Article
  12. First Step to Equity and Organization in Waiting Lines for Stone Surgery. Translation of Prioritization Scores.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    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

5 authors.

Jurriaan P OudhoffDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Free University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.p.oudhoff@bham.ac.uk
Danielle R M Timmermans
Martin Rietberg
Dirk L Knol
Gerrit van der Wal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProblematic waiting lists in public health care threaten the equity and timeliness of care provision in several countries. This study assesses different stakeholders' views on the acceptability of waiting lists in health care, their preferences for priority care of patients, and their judgements on acceptable waiting times for surgical patients.

methodsA questionnaire survey was conducted among 257 former patients (82 with varicose veins, 86 with inguinal hernia, and 89 with gallstones), 101 surgeons, 95 occupational physicians, and 65 GPs. Judgements on acceptable waiting times were assessed using vignettes of patients with varicose veins, inguinal hernia, and gallstones.

resultsParticipants endorsed the prioritisation of patients based on clinical need, but not on ability to benefit. The groups had significantly different opinions (p < 0.05) on the use of non-clinical priority criteria and on the need for uniformity in the prioritisation process. Acceptable waiting times ranged between 2 and 25 weeks depending on the type of disorder (p < 0.001) and the severity of physical and psychosocial problems of patients (p < 0.001). Judgements were similar between the survey groups (p = 0.3) but responses varied considerably within each group depending on the individual's attitude towards waiting lists in health care (p < 0.001).

conclusionThe explicit prioritisation of patients seems an accepted means for reducing the overall burden from waiting lists. The disagreement about appropriate prioritisation criteria and the need for uniformity, however, raises concern about equity when implementing prioritisation in daily practice. Single factor waiting time thresholds seem insufficient for securing timely care provision in the presence of long waiting lists as they do not account for the different consequences of waiting between patients.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelWaiting ListsElective Surgical ProceduresFamily PracticeFemaleGallstonesGeneral SurgeryHealth Care RationingHealth PrioritiesHealth Services AccessibilityHernia, InguinalHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOccupational Medicine

Identifiers

PMID17328816
PMCPMC1847814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.