Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31959608›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

What do we know about demand, use and outcomes in primary care out-of-hours services? A systematic scoping review of international literature.

Hamish Foster, Keith R Moffat, Nicola Burns, Maria Gannon, Sara Macdonald, Catherine A O'Donnell

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Why do patients attend out-of-hours GP services in Ireland?Irish journal of medical science · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Safety-netting advice documentation in out-of-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort from 2013 to 2020.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hamish FosterGeneral Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Keith R MoffatGeneral Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Nicola BurnsGeneral Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Maria GannonGeneral Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Sara MacdonaldGeneral Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Catherine A O'DonnellGeneral Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Kate.O'Donnell@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5368-3779
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo synthesise international evidence for demand, use and outcomes of primary care out-of-hours health services (OOHS).

designSystematic scoping review. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL; Medline; PsyARTICLES; PsycINFO; SocINDEX; and Embase from 1995 to 2019. STUDY SELECTION: English language studies in UK or similar international settings, focused on services in or directly impacting primary care.

results105 studies included: 54% from mainland Europe/Republic of Ireland; 37% from UK. Most focused on general practitioner-led out-of-hours cooperatives. Evidence for increasing patient demand over time was weak due to data heterogeneity, infrequent reporting of population denominators and little adjustment for population sociodemographics. There was consistent evidence of higher OOHS use in the evening compared with overnight, at weekends and by certain groups (children aged <5, adults aged >65, women, those from socioeconomically deprived areas, with chronic diseases or mental health problems). Contact with OOHS was driven by problems perceived as urgent by patients. Respiratory, musculoskeletal, skin and abdominal symptoms were the most common reasons for contact in adults; fever and gastrointestinal symptoms were the most common in the under-5s. Frequent users of daytime services were also frequent OOHS users; difficulty accessing daytime services was also associated with OOHS use. There is some evidence to suggest that OOHS colocated in emergency departments (ED) can reduce demand in EDs.

conclusionsPolicy changes have impacted on OOHS over the past two decades. While there are generalisable lessons, a lack of comparable data makes it difficult to judge how demand has changed over time. Agreement on collection of OOHS data would allow robust comparisons within and across countries and across new models of care. Future developments in OOHS should also pay more attention to the relationship with daytime primary care and other services. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015029741.

Indexed as

EmergenciesHealth Services Needs and DemandAfter-Hours CareGeneral PractitionersHumansPrimary Health Carefamily medicinegeneral practicehealth service useprimary careservice organisation

Identifiers

PMID31959608
PMCPMC7045150
OpenAlexW3002200267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.