ArticleBJGP open2023
Comparison of two GP service provider models in older adults: a register-based follow-up study.
Article in BJGP open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in office-hours doctor and nurse consultations: six-year register-based follow-up cohort study in the public primary health care of City of Vantaa, Finland.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025Article
- Article
- Change of primary health care service provider model in Vantaa: the impact on mortality and causes of death among older adults - a register-based follow-up study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Changes in location and number of nurse consultations as the supply of general practitioners decreases in primary health care: six-year register-based follow-up cohort study in the city of Vantaa, Finland.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Finland, there have been various strategies attempting to provide access to GPs. The 'restricted-List General Practitioner model' (rLGP) was launched in primary health care (PHC) in the city of Vantaa after the 'named General Practitioner model' (nGP) failed to provide sufficient access to GPs. This was done to improve access to GP appointments for those most needing care.
aimTo evaluate the impact of the transition from nGP to rLGP on access to non-urgent scheduled appointments among patients aged ≥75 years. DESIGN &
settingA register-based follow-up study in public PHC in Vantaa, Finland.
methodThe study focused on patients aged ≥75 years who used PHC from 2004-2008. It looked at the number of non-urgent and urgent scheduled appointments, patient contacts, home visits, PHC emergency department appointments, and cancelled appointments, which were recorded 7 years before and after the transition from nGP to rLGP in 2011 and adjusted to patient-years. Non-urgent appointments were booked to the patient's own nGP or rLGP in public PHC, whereas urgent appointments could be to any GP.
resultsThe number of non-urgent scheduled appointments to GPs was halved during the time of nGP, before launching the rLGP. Simultaneously, the number of urgent scheduled appointments more than tripled. The number of both started to plateau a year before the rLGP was launched. The number of both non-urgent and urgent scheduled appointments remained mainly at that level after rLGP was implemented.
conclusionThe rLGP model was unsuccessful in improving access to non-urgent scheduled appointments to GPs.
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.