ArticleBMJ open2022
CUP study: protocol for a comparative analysis of centralised waitlist effectiveness, policies and innovations for connecting unattached patients to primary care providers.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing the match between patient needs and primary care services: Patient and healthcare provider perspectives from two Canadian provinces.Journal of health services research & policy · 2026Article
- The use of centralized waiting lists for attachment to family physicians in Quebec, Canada: predictive factors and association with non-urgent emergency department use.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Lung Cancer Screening in Family Members and Peers of Patients With Lung Cancer: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAccess to a primary care provider is a key component of high-functioning healthcare systems. In Canada, 15% of patients do not have a regular primary care provider and are classified as 'unattached'. In an effort to link unattached patients with a provider, seven Canadian provinces implemented centralised waitlists (CWLs). The effectiveness of CWLs in attaching patients to regular primary care providers is unknown. Factors influencing CWLs effectiveness, particularly across jurisdictional contexts, have yet to be confirmed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods case study will be conducted across three Canadian provinces: Ontario, Québec and Nova Scotia. Quantitatively, CWL data will be linked to administrative and provider billing data to assess the rates of patient attachment over time and delay of attachment, stratified by demographics and compared with select indicators of health service utilisation. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with policymakers, patients, and primary care providers to elicit narratives regarding the administration, use, and access of CWLs. An analysis of policy documents will be used to identify contextual factors affecting CWL effectiveness. Stakeholder dialogues will be facilitated to uncover causal pathways and identify strategies for improving patient attachment to primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval to conduct this study has been granted in Ontario (Queens University Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board, file number 6028052; Western University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, project 116591; University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, protocol number 40335), Québec (Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Estrie, project number 2020-3446) and Nova Scotia (Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, file number 1024979).
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.