Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35979451›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Patient's decision and experience in the multi-channel appointment context: An empirical study.

Qing Ye, Hong Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Qing YeTongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Hong WuSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Long waiting time for treatment in the outpatient department has long been a complaint and has influenced patient's experience. It is critical to schedule patients for doctors to reduce patient's waiting time. Nowadays, multi-channel appointment has been provided for patients to get medical services, especially for those with severe illnesses and remote distance. This study aims to explore the factors that influence patient appointment channel choice in the context of multi-channel appointments, and how channel choice affects the waiting time for offline visiting. Methods: We collected outpatient appointment records from both online and offline appointment channels to conduct our empirical research. The empirical analysis is conducted in two steps. We first analyze the relationship between appointment channel choice and patient's waiting time and then the relationships between three determinants and appointment channel choice. The ordinary least squares and the logistic regression model are used to obtain the empirical results. Results: Our results show that a patient with an online appointment decision has a shorter consultation waiting time compared with a patient with on-site appointment (β = -0.320, Conclusions: Our study confirms the effect of Internet use on reducing patient's waiting time. Patients consider both health-related risk factors and cost-related risk factors to make decisions on appointment channels. Our study produces several insights, which have implications for channel choice and patient's behavior literature. More importantly, these insights contribute to the design of appointment systems in hospitals.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesPhysiciansEmpirical ResearchHumansOutpatientsReferral and Consultationcost-related factorhealth-related factormulti-channel contextpatient experiencewaiting time

Identifiers

PMID35979451
PMCPMC9376290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.