Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36114464›Full record

Observational studyBMC primary care2022

Improved access to and continuity of primary care after attachment to a family physician: longitudinal cohort study on centralized waiting lists for unattached patients in Quebec, Canada.

Mélanie Ann Smithman, Jeannie Haggerty, Isabelle Gaboury, Mylaine Breton

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Impact of changes in primary care attachment: a scoping review.Family medicine and community health · 2025
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Mélanie Ann SmithmanUniversité de Sherbrooke, 150 place Charles-Le Moyne, bureau 200, Longueuil, Québec, J4K 0A8, Canada.
Jeannie HaggertySt. Mary's Research Center, McGill University, 3830 avenue Lacombe, Hayes Pavilion, suite 4720, Montreal, Québec, H3t 1M5, Canada.
Isabelle GabouryUniversité de Sherbrooke, 150 place Charles-Le Moyne, bureau 200, Longueuil, Québec, J4K 0A8, Canada.
Mylaine BretonUniversité de Sherbrooke, 150 place Charles-Le Moyne, bureau 200, Longueuil, Québec, J4K 0A8, Canada. mylaine.breton@usherbrooke.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHaving a regular family physician is associated with many benefits. Formal attachment - an administrative patient-family physician agreement - is a popular feature in primary care, intended to improve access to and continuity of care with a family physician. However, little evidence exists about its effectiveness. In Quebec, Canada, where over 20% of the population is unattached, centralized waiting lists help attach patients. This provides a unique opportunity to observe the influence of attachment in previously unattached patients. The aim was to evaluate changes in access to and continuity of primary care associated with attachment to a family physician through Quebec's centralized waiting lists for unattached patients.

methodsWe conducted an observational longitudinal population cohort study, using medical services billing data from public health insurance in the province of Québec, Canada. We included patients attached through centralized waiting lists for unattached patients between 2012 and 2014 (n = 410,140). Our study was informed by Aday and Andersen's framework for the study of access to health services. We compared outcomes during four 12-month periods: two periods before and two periods after attachment, with T0-2 years as the reference period. Outcome measures were number of primary care visits and Bice-Boxerman Concentration of Care Index at the physician and practice level (for patients with ≥2 visits in a given period). We included age, sex, region remoteness, medical vulnerability, and Charlson Comorbidity Index as covariates in regression models fitted with generalized estimating equations.

resultsThe number of primary care visits increased by 103% in the first post attachment year and 29% in the second year (p < 0.001). The odds of having all primary care visits concentrated with a single physician increased by 53% in the first year and 22% (p < 0.001) in the second year after attachment. At the practice level, the odds of perfect concentration of care increased by 19% (p < 0.001) and 15% (p < 0.001) respectively, in first and second year after attachment.

conclusionOur results show an increase in patients' number of primary care visits and concentration of care at the family physician and practice level after attachment to a family physician. This suggests that attachment may help improve access to and continuity of primary care.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareHealth Services AccessibilityPhysicians, FamilyWaiting ListsCohort StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesPrimary Health CareQuebecAttachmentContinuity of patient careFamily physiciansHealth services accessibilityLongitudinal studiesObservational studyPatient rosteringPhysicians, primary carePrimary health careWaiting lists

Identifiers

PMID36114464
PMCPMC9482231

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.