ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2023
Comparison of patients' perceptions of family physicians' patient-centeredness between virtual and in-person clinical encounters: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions and use of publicly funded episodic virtual care: Cross-sectional survey data from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Article
- Complexity of medical needs and primary care attachment shape patient experiences with episodic virtual primary care: a mixed methods study in two Canadian provinces.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Examining experiences and system impacts of publicly funded episodic virtual care: protocol for a cross-provincial mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A clinician's patient-centeredness is a core construct of quality healthcare and is associated with several positive patient outcomes. This study aimed to compare patient-perceived patient centeredness between in-person and virtual clinical encounters during the coronavirus pandemic. Materials and Methods: Participants completed an online anonymous questionnaire pertaining to a recent clinical encounter. Patients of an academic family medicine teaching clinic scheduled for either an in-person or a virtual clinical encounter were recruited by phone over a two-month period. Using the patient-centered clinical method as a conceptual framework, patient-perceived patient centeredness was measured by the Patient-Perceived Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire-Revised (PPPC-R), consisting of 18 items that reflect three factors (healthcare process, context and relationship, and roles). Results: The sample consisted of 72 participants. There was no difference in the PPPC-R scores between participants who received in-person and those who received virtual care. However, the mean ranks for the PPPC-R total score and for all three factors were higher for participants who saw a family physician compared to participants who saw a family medicine learner. Conclusion: Family physicians provided similar quality healthcare, measured through a patient-perceived patient-centeredness lens, via both virtual and in-person appointments. These results support sustaining virtual care when deemed appropriate by both patient and clinician.
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.