ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2008
Does Choose & Book fail to deliver the expected choice to patients? A survey of patients' experience of outpatient appointment booking.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stakeholders' experiences, perceptions and satisfaction with an electronic appointment system: a qualitative content analysis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Assimilation of Medical Appointment Scheduling Systems and Their Impact on the Accessibility of Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Factors contributing towards patient's choice of a hospital clinic from the patients' and managers' perspective.Electronic physician · 2016Article
- Any qualified provider: a qualitative case study of one community NHS Trust's response.BMJ open · 2016Article
- E-referral Solutions: Successful Experiences, Key Features and Challenges- a Systematic Review.Materia socio-medica · 2015Article
- Adoption, use, and impact of e-booking in private medical practices: mixed-methods evaluation of a two-year showcase project in Canada.JMIR medical informatics · 2014Article
- Development and implementation of a decision pathway for general practitioners for the management or referral of suspected allergy.Journal of public health research · 2014Article
- A qualitative evaluation of general practitioners' views on protocol-driven eReferral in Scotland.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014Article
- Patient choice for older people in english NHS primary care: theory and practice.ISRN family medicine · 2014Review
- Follow-up care in cancer: adjusting for referral targets and extending choice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2013Article
- Health literacy: a necessity for increasing participation in health care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChoose and Book is a central part of the UK Government patient choice agenda that seeks to provide patients with a choice over the time, date and place of their first outpatient appointment. This is done through the use of a computerised booking system. After a 2004 pilot study, Choose and Book was formally launched in January 2006. This is the first study of patient experience of Choose and Book since then.
methodsA questionnaire survey of reported experience of choice over the time, data and place of appointment, carried out in a National Health Service hospital in London. 104 patients at their first outpatient appointment completed the questionnaire, consisting of a consecutive series of patients referred through Choose and Book and a sample referred through the conventional booking system.
resultsAmong the Choose and Book patients, 66% (31/47; 95% CI 52 to 78%) reported not being given a choice of appointment date, 66% (31/47; 95% CI 52 to 78%) reported not being given a choice of appointment time, 86% (37/43; 95% CI 74 to 94%) reported being given a choice of fewer than four hospitals in total and 32% (15/47; 95% CI 20 to 46%) reported not being given any choice of hospital.
conclusionIn this study, patients did not experience the degree of choice that Choose and Book was designed to deliver.
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.