ArticleBMJ open2023
First contact with the health system: a survey study in northern Portugal.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveThe objective of this study is to characterise the self-reported first contact with the health system and the reasons stated for each choice, testing associations with population characteristics.
designCross-sectional survey.
settingPrimary care department of a local health unit in northern Portugal.
participantsRandom sample of 4286 persons, retrieved from all registered adults. OUTCOMES: Participants who stated they usually see the same doctor when a health problem arises were considered to adopt first-contact care and were asked to identify their regular doctor. Participants were asked why they adopt first-contact care or why they choose to do otherwise. Associations between personal characteristics and the adoption of first-contact care were tested using logistic regression.
resultsThere were 808 valid questionnaires received (19% response rate). The mean age of respondents was 53 years, 58% were women and 60% had a high school or higher degree. Most (71%) stated always seeing the same doctor when facing a health problem. This was a general practitioner (GP) in 84%. The main reasons were previous knowledge and trust in the doctor. When this doctor was not a GP, the main reason was the need to obtain an appointment quickly. Participants who chose first-contact care were less likely to have university degrees than those who did not (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.76). Being registered with the same GP for over 1 year increased the odds of adopting first-contact care: twice as likely for those registered for 1-4 years with the same GP (2.07; 95% CI 1.04 to 4.11), and three times more likely for those registered for over 10 years (3.21; 95% CI 1.70 to 6.08).
conclusionsThe high adoption of first-contact care and the reasons given for this suggest a strong belief in primary care in this population. The longer patients experience continuity, the more they adopt first-contact care. The preferences of higher-educated patients regarding first-contact care deserve reflection.
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.