ArticlePrimary health care research & development2019
Patients' experiences and preferences for primary care delivery: a focus group analysis.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Access or continuity: a zero sum game? A systematic review of the literature examining the relationship between access and continuity in primary healthcare.BMC primary care · 2025Pooled it
- Conjoint analyses of patients' preferences for primary care: a systematic review.BMC primary care · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Patient experience and expectations with collaborative management between pharmacies and primary care: a qualitative study of a trial (USFarmácia) exit focus group.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2005, the Portuguese government launched a primary care (PC) reform. After a promising start, the reform is still incomplete and has been compromised by low investment. The incomplete nature of the reforms has resulted in the coexistence of different models of care delivery and heterogeneity in resource allocation and performance. PC has been extensively evaluated, but little is known about the patients' views and preferences regarding PC and the ongoing reform.
aimThis study aims to examine patients' experiences of and preferences for PC in Portugal and to explore their experience of the recent reforms.
methodsA qualitative study was undertaken which collected data from eight focus groups in the city of Braga, Portugal. Participants were recruited with the collaboration of eight local institutions. Focus groups' discussions focused on patients' experiences of and preferences for PC as well as their views on the reforms. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using an inductive thematic content analysis.
findingsThe majority of participants perceived that the reform was positive. However, the improvements achieved by the reform were insufficient to lead to most participants having a positive experience of PC delivery in Portugal. Participants' satisfaction/dissatisfaction with primary care was strongly associated with interpersonal relations and communication with doctors. Participants valued continuity of care, but felt the levels of responsiveness, flexibility and coordination in the current system were still unsatisfactory. Access and waiting times were seen as challenging and led participants to seek PC from emergency departments and private doctors. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The perception of increased inequity and the lack of effective choice undermined the social acceptability of the reform. Policies aimed at improving doctor-patient communication and continuity of care, as well as choice, may therefore lead to better satisfaction and more efficient use of health care settings.
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.