Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28109279›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

A comparative analysis of centralized waiting lists for patients without a primary care provider implemented in six Canadian provinces: study protocol.

Mylaine Breton, Michael Green, Sara Kreindler, Jason Sutherland, Jalila Jbilou, Sabrina T Wong, Jay Shaw, Valorie A Crooks, Damien Contandriopoulos, Mélanie Ann Smithman and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Enhancing Cancer Care through Blockchain Technology.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Mylaine BretonCharles-LeMoyne Hospital Research Centre, Sherbrooke University, Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-LeMoyne, Office 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada. mylaine.breton@usherbrooke.ca.
Michael GreenFamily Medicine and Public Health Sciences and CHSPR, Queen's University, Abramsky Hall, 3rd Floor 21 Arch St., Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Sara KreindlerManitoba Research Chair in Health System Innovation and Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 200-1155 Concordia Ave., Winnipeg, MB, R2K 2M9, Canada.
Jason SutherlandCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, 201-2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Jalila JbilouSchool of psychology, Université de Moncton, Centre de formation médicale du Nouveau-Brunswick, Pavillon Léopold-Taillon Université de Moncton, 18 Ave Antonine-Maillet, Moncton, NB, E1A 3E9, Canada.
Sabrina T WongSchool of Nursing and Centre for Health Services and Policy Research in the School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada.
Jay ShawInstitute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON, M5S1B2, Canada.
Valorie A CrooksCanada Research Chair in Health Service Geographies, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada.
Damien ContandriopoulosFaculty of nursing, University of Montréal, 2375, chemin de la Côte-Ste-Catherine, Montréal, Québec, H3T 1A8, Canada.
Mélanie Ann SmithmanCharles-LeMoyne Hospital Research Centre, Sherbrooke University, Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-LeMoyne, Office 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada.
Astrid BrousselleCharles-LeMoyne Hospital Research Centre, Sherbrooke University, Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-LeMoyne, Office 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada.
Université de Sherbrooke · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAQueen's University · CASimon Fraser University · CAUniversité de Moncton · CAUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CAWomen's College Hospital · CA

Funding

CIHR #145183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHaving a regular primary care provider (i.e., family physician or nurse practitioner) is widely considered to be a prerequisite for obtaining healthcare that is timely, accessible, continuous, comprehensive, and well-coordinated with other parts of the healthcare system. Yet, 4.6 million Canadians, approximately 15% of Canada's population, are unattached; that is, they do not have a regular primary care provider. To address the critical need for attachment, especially for more vulnerable patients, six Canadian provinces have implemented centralized waiting lists for unattached patients. These waiting lists centralize unattached patients' requests for a primary care provider in a given territory and match patients with providers. From the little information we have on each province's centralized waiting list, we know the way they work varies significantly from province to province. The main objective of this study is to compare the different models of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients implemented in six provinces of Canada to each other and to available scientific knowledge to make recommendations on ways to improve their design in an effort to increase attachment of patients to a primary care provider.

methodsA logic analysis approach developed in three steps will be used. Step 1: build logic models that describe each province's centralized waiting list through interviews with key stakeholders in each province; step 2: develop a conceptual framework, separate from the provincially informed logic models, that identifies key characteristics of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients and factors influencing their implementation through a literature review and interviews with experts; step 3: compare the logic models to the conceptual framework to make recommendations to improve centralized waiting lists in different provinces during a pan Canadian face-to-face exchange with decision-makers, clinicians and researchers. DISCUSSION: This study is based on an inter-provincial learning exchange approach where we propose to compare centralized waiting lists and analyze variations in strategies used to increase attachment to a regular primary care provider. Fostering inter-provincial healthcare systems connectivity to improve centralized waiting lists' practices across Canada can lever attachment to a regular provider for timely access to continuous, comprehensive and coordinated healthcare for all Canadians and particular for those who are vulnerable.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareWaiting ListsCanadaFamily PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHumansNurse PractitionersPatientsProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationQuality ImprovementReferral and ConsultationRegistriesComparative studyGeneral practitionersHealth services accessibilityPhysician patient relationshipPhysiciansPrimary health careUnattached patientsWaiting lists

Identifiers

PMID28109279
PMCPMC5251310
OpenAlexW2578621549

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.