Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21518935›Full record

SynthesisArchives of internal medicine2011

Advanced access scheduling outcomes: a systematic review.

Katherine D Rose, Joseph S Ross, Leora I Horwitz

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Continuity of primary care and end-of-life care costs in dementia: a retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Katherine D RoseBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Joseph S Ross
Leora I Horwitz

Funding

YALE UNIVERSITY CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARD PROGRAMUL1RR024139 · NCRR · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SHERWIN, ROBERT S · 2006 to 2011
$56.8M
Yale University Clinical and Translational Science Award ProgramKL2RR024138 · NCRR · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SHERWIN, ROBERT S · 2006 to 2011
$4.8M
Impact of Publicity Reporting Hospital Outcome Measures for Older AdultsK08AG032886 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI ROSS, JOSEPH SOLOMON · 2008 to 2012
$738k
Heart Failure Readmissions in Older Adults: A Systems PerspectiveK08AG038336 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI HORWITZ, LEORA · 2010 to 2013
$648k
NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024138NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024139NIA NIH HHS K08 AG032886NIA NIH HHS K08AG032886NIA NIH HHS K08 AG038336NIA NIH HHS K08AG038336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvanced ("open") access scheduling, which promotes patient-driven scheduling in lieu of prearranged appointments, has been proposed as a more patient-centered appointment method and has been widely adopted throughout the United Kingdom, within the US Veterans Health Administration, and among US private practices.

objectiveTo describe patient and physician and/or practice outcomes resulting from implementation of advanced access scheduling in the primary care setting. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science) through August, 2010, supplemented by reference lists and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were assessed in duplicate, and reviewers were blinded to author, journal, and date of publication. Controlled and uncontrolled English-language studies of advanced access implementation in primary care were eligible if they specified methods and reported outcomes data. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers collaboratively assessed risk for bias by using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Risk of Bias criteria. Data were independently extracted in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-eight articles describing 24 studies met eligibility criteria. All studies had at least 1 source of potential bias. All 8 studies evaluating time to third-next-available appointment showed reductions (range of decrease, 1.1-32 days), but only 2 achieved a third-next-available appointment in less than 48 hours (25%). No-show rates improved only in practices with baseline no-show rates higher than 15%. Effects on patient satisfaction were variable. Limited data addressed clinical outcomes and loss to follow-up.

conclusionsStudies of advanced access support benefits to wait time and no-show rate. However, effects on patient satisfaction were mixed, and data about clinical outcomes and loss to follow-up were lacking.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesContinuity of Patient CareHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPatient-Centered CarePatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareQuality Assurance, Health CareResearch DesignTime FactorsUnited KingdomUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs

Identifiers

PMID21518935
PMCPMC3154021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.