ArticleJournal of patient experience2020
Factors Associated With Patient Ratings of Timeliness of Primary Care Appointments.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of virtual appointments on referral-to-appointment times for type 2 diabetes patients in Northwest London.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Surveying patients to assess timeliness of cancer diagnosis.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Re-evaluating the access imperative in healthcare in the United States.Journal of public health policy · 2026Review
- Prospective real-world implementation of deep learning systems in healthcare: a systematic review guided by implementation science.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Re-Evaluating Access in Healthcare: Focus on Quality of Care.Public health challenges · 2025Review
- Patient Experience With Primary Care Physician Assistants in Ontario, Canada: Impact of Trust, Knowledge, and Access to Care.Journal of patient experience · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As access is the lowest rated dimension in surveys of outpatient experience, we sought to identify patient, practice, and provider factors associated with positive ratings of timeliness of primary care appointments. A cross-sectional study with multivariable, multilevel logistic regression was performed using survey responses from 236 695 individuals receiving care in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Top box ratings (response of "always") for whether the patient reported receiving an appointment as soon as they needed in primary care for routine care and for care needed right away were the main outcomes. Independent variables capturing patient, practice, and provider factors were obtained from survey responses and VA databases. Degree of continuity with primary care provider and duration of relationship were strongly associated with higher ratings. Shorter primary care appointment wait times for both new and returning patients were associated with higher ratings. Independent wait times for mental health and specialty appointments had no effect. Older age, better self-reported physical and mental health, lower disease complexity, and rural residence were patient factors associated with higher ratings while gender, race, ethnicity, and education had little effect. Measures of continuity with primary care provider as well as appointment wait times have strong association with positive patient ratings of appointment timeliness. Patients treated in Veterans Affairs clinics may value continuity with their primary care provider over longer times. Initiatives to improve access could focus on improving continuity and ensuring efforts to improve access do not impact continuity.
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.