ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
The use of mobile application in primary health care in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenging Encounters: A Systematic Scoping Review to Understand Patients' Influence on GPs' Compliance With Imaging Guidelines.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Trends of consultation time, waiting time, and satisfaction in family medicine/primary health care centers in Saudi Arabia: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Review
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
backgroundTechnology implantation, for example, smartphone application, in primary health care (PHC) is an approach to enhance healthcare services via availability and convenient access. This study described the factors contributing for not booking an appointment using the mobile application, and why patients visit PHC physicians.
methodThis is a cross-sectional study that included 477 participants who visited the PHC physicians. Eligible subjects who present in the patients' waiting area were asked to participate by giving them a self-administered questionnaire.
resultsWith a total of 477 participants' appointments, 83.5% (N = 398) of them were booked through the mobile application. Out of 398, 54.6% (N = 217) were not booked by the patients themselves. The most common reasons for the visits were follow-up (38.8%), lab/imaging results (34%), and acute complaint (27.3%). Gender, age, and the number of comorbidities the patient has were significantly associated with those who didn't book the appointment by themselves through the mobile application (P-value <0.001). Males were more likely to book for themselves than females. The average age for patients who booked for themselves through the mobile application was significantly low (Mea
conclusionAge, gender, and number of comorbidities were significant factors contributing to not to book an appointment/use mobile application by the patients themselves. The mobile application might cause difficulties and influence the appointment booking process. The application should be expanded throughout the country with further modification to meet the patient's needs.
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.