Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25649074›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

Who gets a family physician through centralized waiting lists?

Mylaine Breton, Astrid Brousselle, Antoine Boivin, Danièle Roberge, Raynald Pineault, Djamal Berbiche

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of changes in primary care attachment: a scoping review.Family medicine and community health · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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.

Mylaine BretonCharles-LeMoyne Hospital Research Centre, Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-LeMoyne, Room 200, Longueuil, J4L 0A8, , Quebec, Canada. mylaine.breton@usherbrooke.ca.
Astrid BrousselleCharles-LeMoyne Hospital Research Centre, Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-LeMoyne, Room 200, Longueuil, J4L 0A8, , Quebec, Canada. astrid.brousselle@usherbrooke.ca.
Antoine BoivinUniversity of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. antoine.boivin@umontreal.ca.
Danièle RobergeCharles-LeMoyne Hospital Research Centre, Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-LeMoyne, Room 200, Longueuil, J4L 0A8, , Quebec, Canada. daniele.roberge@usherbrooke.ca.
Raynald PineaultUniversity of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. rpineaul@santepub-mtl.qc.ca.
Djamal BerbicheCharles-LeMoyne Hospital Research Centre, Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-LeMoyne, Room 200, Longueuil, J4L 0A8, , Quebec, Canada. djamal.berbiche@usherbrooke.ca.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNorth American patients are experiencing difficulties in securing affiliations with family physicians. Centralized waiting lists are increasingly being used in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to improve access. In 2011, the Canadian province of Quebec introduced new financial incentives for family physicians' enrolment of orphan patients through centralized waiting lists, the Guichet d'accès aux clientèles orphelines, with higher payments for vulnerable patients. This study analyzed whether any significant changes were observed in the numbers of patient enrolments with family physicians' after the introduction of the new financial incentives. Prior to then, financial incentives had been offered for enrolment of vulnerable patients only and there were no incentives for enrolling non-vulnerable patients. After 2011, financial incentives were also offered for enrolment of non-vulnerable patients, while those for enrolment of vulnerable patients were doubled.

methodsA longitudinal quantitative analysis spanning a five-year period (2008-2013) was performed using administrative databases covering all patients enrolled with family physicians through centralized waiting lists in the province of Quebec (n = 494,697 patients). Mixed regression models for repeated-measures were used.

resultsThe number of patients enrolled with a family physician through centralized waiting lists more than quadrupled after the changes in financial incentives. Most of this increase involved non-vulnerable patients. After the changes, 70% of patients enrolled with a family physician through centralized waiting lists were non-vulnerable patients, most of whom had been referred to the centralized waiting lists by the physician who enrolled them, without first being registered in those lists or having to wait because of their priority level.

conclusionCentralized waiting lists linked to financial incentives increased the number of family physicians' patient enrolments. However, although vulnerable patients were supposed to be given precedence, physicians favoured enrolment of healthier patients over those with greater health needs and higher assessed priority. These results suggest that introducing financial incentives without appropriate regulations may lead to opportunistic use of the incentive system with unintended policy consequences.

Indexed as

Waiting ListsControlled Before-After StudiesFamily PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHumansLongitudinal StudiesMotivationPatientsPhysicians, FamilyQuebecReferral and ConsultationRegistries

Identifiers

PMID25649074
PMCPMC4328670

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.