ArticleBMC primary care2024
Patient experiences in primary care do not differ according to rurality: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testing and evaluating updated variants of the rurality index for Japan: a nationwide methodological study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Urban-rural differences in hospital beds and employee income: a study using the rurality index for healthcare research in Japan.Journal of rural medicine : JRM · 2026Article
- Association Between Rurality and Financial Performance of Public Hospitals in Japan: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of general and family medicine · 2026Article
- Analysis of patient activation and its influencing factors among Chinese rural older adults with chronic multimorbidity.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Online reviews in primary care - a mimicry indicator of quality? A comparative analysis across urban and rural regions in Germany.Research in health services & regions · 2025Article
- Review
- Correction: Patient experiences in primary care do not differ according to rurality: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Association Between Duration of Usual Source of Care and Patient-reported Primary Care Quality in Japan: A Nationwide Cross-sectional Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiving in rural areas is a major contributor of health inequity. Tackling health inequity is important for primary care physicians. Therefore, it is important to compare the quality of primary care between rural and urban areas. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the association between rurality and patient experience (PX) in Japan using validated measures.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted using online surveys. Participants were selected using a stratified random sample based on sex and age. The Japanese version of the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) was used as an indicator of PX. We used the Rurality Index for Japan (RIJ) to measure rurality. Furthermore, we used multivariate linear regression analysis to examine the relationship between the RIJ and PCPCM after adjusting for confounders.
resultsOf the 1112 eligible participants, 800 responded to the survey (response rate:71.9%). The mean PCPCM scores were 2.46 (standard deviation: 0.73) and median RIJ was 15 (interquartile range: 6-33). The crude and adjusted coefficients of rurality were - 0.02 (- 0.006-0.001, p = 0.114) and - 0.02 (- 0.005-0.001), respectively, demonstrating that rurality was not significantly associated with the total PCPCM score. Subgroup analyses were similar to the main analyses.
conclusionWe found that PX in primary care did not differ by rurality in the general Japanese population.
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.