Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38242712›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2024

Access systems in general practice: a systematic scoping review.

Abi Eccles, Carol Bryce, Annelieke Driessen, Catherine Pope, Jennifer MacLellan, Toto Gronlund, Brian D Nicholson, Sue Ziebland, Helen Atherton

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. What patients want from access to UK general practice: systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Access to general practice appointments and sustainable change: a focused ethnographic case study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Improving general practice appointment booking processes: bureaucratic justice and patient-centred reforms.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  8. Access to general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Abi EcclesWarwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9792-8299
Carol BryceWarwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1484-9032
Annelieke DriessenNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; post-doctoral researcher, Anthropology Department, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5627-1684
Catherine PopeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.ORCID 0000-0002-8935-6702
Jennifer MacLellanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.ORCID 0000-0002-6872-5011
Toto GronlundPrimary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8237-322X
Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.ORCID 0000-0003-0661-7362
Sue ZieblandNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.ORCID 0000-0002-6496-4859
Helen AthertonPrimary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7072-1925

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccess to GP appointments is increasingly challenging in many high-income countries, with an overstretched workforce and rising demand. Various access systems have been developed and evaluated internationally.

aimTo systematically consolidate the current international evidence base related to different types of GP access systems. DESIGN AND

settingScoping review examining international literature.

methodLiterature searches were run across relevant databases in May 2022. Title, abstract, and full-text screenings were carried out. Data from included studies were extracted and mapped to synthesise the components and aims within different GP access systems.

resultsIn total, 49 studies were included in the review. The majority of these were set in the UK. Some access systems featured heavily in the literature, such as Advanced Access, telephone triage, and online consultations, and others less so. There were two key strategies adopted by systems that related to either changing appointment capacity or modifying patient pathways. Components related to these strategies are summarised and illustrated as a schematic representation. Most rationales behind access systems were practice, rather than patient, focused. 'Add-on' systems and aims for efficiency have become more popular in recent years.

conclusionThis synthesis provides a useful tool in understanding access systems' aims, design, and implementation. With focus on alleviating demand, patient-focused outcomes appear to be underinvestigated and potentially overlooked during design and implementation. More recently, digital services have been promoted as offering patient choice and convenience. But a context where demand outweighs resources challenges the premise that extending choice is possible.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesGeneral PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHumansUnited Kingdomappointments and schedulesgeneral practiceprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID38242712
PMCPMC11388093

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.