Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37310673›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine2023

Perceived Access and Appropriateness: Comparison of Teaching and Resident Family Physicians' Patients.

Isabel Rodrigues, Marie Authier, Jeannie Haggerty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

3 authors.

Isabel RodriguesDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Marie AuthierDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jeannie HaggertyDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeTeaching clinics aim to provide patients with care that is comprehensive, high quality, and timely. Since resident presence at the clinic is irregular, timely access to care and continuity remain challenging. The two main objectives of our study were to compare the experience of timely access by patients of family residents vs staff and to determine if there was a difference between resident and staff patients in reported appropriateness and patient-centeredness of the visit.

methodsThis cross-sectional survey study was carried out in nine family medicine teaching clinics part of University of Montreal and McGill University Family Medicine Networks. Patients self-administered two anonymous questionnaires, before and after their consultation.

resultsWe collected 1,979 preconsultation questionnaires. Teaching physician (staff) patients rated the usual wait time for an appointment as very good or excellent more frequently than resident patients (46% vs 35 %; P=.001). One out of five reported consulting another clinic in the last 12 months. Resident patients consulted elsewhere more often. In postconsultation questionnaires staff patients rated their visit experience better than resident physician patients and patients of second-year residents better than first-year residents.

conclusionAlthough patients generally have a positive perception of access to care and adequacy of the consultations meet their needs, staff also face the challenge of providing better access to their patients. Finally, we found the patients' perceived visit-based patient centeredness was higher for visits of second-year than first-year resident physicians, supporting the impact of training efforts toward patient-centered best practices.

Indexed as

Family PracticePhysicians, FamilyAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID37310673
PMCPMC10622098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.