Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28984018›Full record

Observational studyJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2017

The impact of improving access to primary care.

David P Glass, Michael H Kanter, Steven J Jacobsen, Paul M Minardi

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Organization of primary care.Primary health care research & development · 2022
    Review
  9. Observational
  10. Advancing multimorbidity management in primary care: a narrative review.Primary health care research & development · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The impact of improving access to primary care.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2017
    Observational
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

4 authors.

David P GlassDepartment of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8558-8637
Michael H KanterThe Permanente Federation and Associate Dean of the Medical School, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Steven J JacobsenDepartment of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, CA, USA.
Paul M MinardiSouthern California Permanente Medical Group, Pasadena, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo measure the size and timing of changes in utilization and costs for employees and dependents who had major access barriers to primary care removed, across an 8-year period (2007 to 2014). STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsRetrospective observational study examining patterns of utilization and costs before and after the implementation of a worksite medical office in 2010. The worksite office offered convenient primary care services with no travel from work, essentially guaranteed same day access, and no co-pay. Trends in visit rates and costs were compared for an intervention fixed cohort group (employees and dependents) at the employer (n = 1211) with a control fixed cohort group (n = 542 162) for 6 types of visits (primary, urgent, emergency, inpatient, specialty, and other outpatient). Difference-in-differences methods assessed the significance of between-group changes in utilization and costs.

resultsThe worksite medical office intervention group had an increase in primary care visits relative to the control group (+43% vs +4%, P < 0.001). This was accompanied by a reduction in urgent care visits by the intervention group compared with the control group (-43% vs -5%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in the other types of visits, and the total visit costs for the intervention group increased 5.7% versus 2.7% for the control group (P = 0.008). A sub-group analysis of the intervention group (comparing dependents to employees) found that that the dependents achieved a reduction in costs of 2.7% (P < 0.001) across the study period.

conclusionsThe potential for long-term reduction in utilization and costs with better access to primary care is significant, but not easily nor automatically achieved.

Indexed as

WorkplaceAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolDeductibles and CoinsuranceFemaleHealth ExpendituresHealth ServicesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRetrospective Studiesaccesscostsprimary care accessprimary care shortageutilizationworksite medical office

Identifiers

PMID28984018
PMCPMC5765488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.