ArticleBMC health services research2019
Patients' perception of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care: a cross-sectional survey in 34 countries.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Developing recommendations for digital collaboration meetings across healthcare levels and services for patients with chronic pain- a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Exploring the Italian Population's attitudes toward health data sharing for healthcare purpose and scientific research: a cross-sectional study.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Examining South Tyrol's Experience: Digital Health Adoption and Workforce Issues in Implementing Italy's Primary Care Reform Under Ministerial Decree No. 77/2022.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Towards understanding and improving medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care: A multimethod study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices about Electronic Personal Health Records: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Region of Northern Italy.Journal of medical systems · 2024Article
- Using the H2O Automatic Machine Learning Algorithms to Identify Predictors of Web-Based Medical Record Nonuse Among Patients in a Data-Rich Environment: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2023Article
- Burnout and job stress of anesthesiologists in the tertiary class A hospitals in Northwest China: A cross-sectional design.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Challenges to the provision of specialized care in remote rural municipalities in Brazil.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Online Medical Record Nonuse Among Patients: Data Analysis Study of the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoor communication between general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists can lead to poorer quality, and continuity, of care. Our study aims to assess patients' perceptions of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care in 34 countries. It will analyse, too, whether this communication is associated with the organisation of primary care within a country, and with the characteristics of GPs and their patients.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey among patients in 34 countries. Following a GP consultation, patients were asked two questions. Did they take to understand that their GP had informed medical specialists about their illness upon referral? And, secondly, did their GP know the results of the treatment by a medical specialist? We used multi-response logistic multilevel models to investigate the association of factors related to primary care, the GP, and the patient, with the patients' perceptions of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care.
resultsIn total, 61,931 patients completed the questionnaire. We found large differences between countries, in both the patients' perceptions of information shared by GPs with medical specialists, and the patients' perceptions of the GPs' awareness of the results of treatment by medical specialists. Patients whose GPs stated that they 'seldom or never' send referral letters, also less frequently perceived that their GP communicated with their medical specialists about their illness. Patients with GPs indicating they 'seldom or never' receive feedback from medical specialists, indicated less frequently that their GP would know the results of treatment by a medical specialist. Moreover, patients with a personal doctor perceived higher rates of communication in both directions at the interface between primary and secondary care.
conclusionGenerally, patients perceive there to be high rates of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care, but there are large differences between countries. Policies aimed at stimulating personal doctor arrangements could, potentially, enhance the continuity of care between primary and secondary care.
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.