ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Exploring the Patient and Staff Experience With the Process of Primary Care.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors affecting women's access to primary care in the United States since the Affordable Care Act: A mixed-methods systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Decision-making and goal-setting in chronic disease management: Baseline findings of a randomized controlled trial.Patient education and counseling · 2017Trial
- Dental Patients' Loyalty and Experiences with Staff/Systems in a Tertiary Hospital.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Hmong Promoting Vaccines eHealth website: a community-based participatory research pilot to evaluate dissemination and implementation strategies for primary care and educational contexts.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical office assistants (MOAs) working in primary care: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Article
- General practitioner contributions to achieving sustained healthcare for offenders: a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrevious studies suggest that the highest-risk patients value accessible, coordinated primary care that they perceive to be of high technical quality. We have limited understanding, however, of how low-income, chronically ill patients and the staff who care for them experience each individual step in the primary care process.
methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with uninsured or Medicaid patients with chronic illnesses, as well as with primary care staff. We interviewed 21 patients and 30 staff members with a variety of job titles from 3 primary care practices (1 federally qualified health center and 2 academically affiliated clinics).]
resultsThe interviews revealed 3 major issues that were present at all stages of a primary care episode: (1) information flow throughout an episode of care is a frequent challenge, despite systems that are intended to improve communication; (2) misaligned goals and expectations among patients, clinicians, and staff members are often an impediment to providing and obtaining care; and (3) personal relationships are highly valued by both patients and staff.
conclusionsVulnerable populations and the primary care staff who work with them perceive some of the same challenges throughout the primary care process. Improving information flow, aligning goals and expectations, and developing personal relationships may improve the experience of both patients and staff.
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.