Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26510620›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

Contacts with out-of-hours primary care for nonurgent problems: patients' beliefs or deficiencies in healthcare?

Ellen Keizer, Marleen Smits, Yvonne Peters, Linda Huibers, Paul Giesen, Michel Wensing

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 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Do callers to out-of-hours care misuse an option to jump the phone queue?Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Patient autonomy in the era of the sustainability crisis.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Ellen KeizerRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, 114 IQ Healthcare, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. Ellen.Keizer@radboudumc.nl.
Marleen SmitsRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, 114 IQ Healthcare, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. Marleen.Smits@radboudumc.nl.
Yvonne PetersRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, 114 IQ Healthcare, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. Yvonne.AS.Peters@radboudumc.nl.
Linda HuibersRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, 114 IQ Healthcare, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. Huibers@ph.au.dk.
Paul GiesenRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, 114 IQ Healthcare, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. Paul.Giesen@radboudumc.nl.
Michel WensingRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, 114 IQ Healthcare, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. Michel.Wensing@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the Netherlands, about half of the patient contacts with a general practitioner (GP) cooperative are nonurgent from a medical perspective. A part of these problems can wait until office hours or can be managed by the patient himself without further professional care. However, from the patient's perspective, there may be a need to contact a physician immediately. Our objective was to determine whether contacts with out-of-hours primary care made by patients with nonurgent problems are the result of patients' beliefs or of deficiencies in the healthcare system.

methodsWe performed a survey among 2000 patients with nonurgent health problems in four GP cooperatives in the Netherlands. Two GPs independently judged the medical necessity of the contacts of all patients in this study. We examined characteristics, views and motives of patients with medically necessary contacts and those without medically necessary contacts. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics, views and reasons of the patients with medically unnecessary contacts and medically necessary contacts. Differences between these groups were tested with chi-square tests.

resultsThe response rate was 32.3 % (N = 646). Of the nonurgent contacts 30.4 % were judged as medically necessary (95 % CI 27.0-34.2). Compared to patients with nonurgent but medically necessary contacts, patients with medically unnecessary contacts were younger and were more often frequent attenders. They had longer-existing problems, lower self-assessed urgency, and more often believed GP cooperatives are intended for all help requests. Worry was the most frequently mentioned motive for contacting a GP cooperative for patients with a medically unnecessary contact (45.3 %) and a perceived need to see a GP for patients with a medically necessary contact (44.2 %). Perceived availability (5.8 %) and accessibility (8.3 %) of a patient's own GP played a role for some patients.

conclusionMotives for contacting a GP cooperative are mostly patient-related, but also deficiencies in access to general practice may partly explain medically unnecessary use. Efforts to change the use of GP cooperatives should focus on education of subgroups with an increased likelihood of contact for medically unnecessary problems. Improvement of access to daytime primary care may also decrease use of the GP cooperative.

Indexed as

After-Hours CareAdolescentAdultAgedAmbulatory CareChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedMotivationNetherlandsPatients

Identifiers

PMID26510620
PMCPMC4625560

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.