ArticleBMC primary care2024
Perception of the compatibility of Quebec residency program characteristics with the advanced access model: 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe advanced access (AA) model is among the most recommended innovations for improving timely access in primary care (PC). AA is based on core pillars such as comprehensive planning for care needs and supply, regularly adjusting supply to demand, optimizing appointment systems, and interprofessional collaborative practices. Exposure of family medicine residents to AA within university-affiliated family medicine groups (U-FMGs) is a promising strategy to widen its dissemination and improve access. Using four AA pillars as a conceptual model, this study aimed to determine the theoretical compatibility of Quebec's university-affiliated clinics' residency programs with the key principles of AA.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was sent to the chief resident and academic director at each participating clinic. An overall response rate of 96% (44/46 U-FMGs) was obtained.
resultsNo local residency program was deemed compatible with all four considered pillars. On planning for needs and supply, only one quarter of the programs were compatible with the principles of AA, owing to residents in out-of-clinic rotations often being unavailable for extended periods. On regularly adjusting supply to demand, 54% of the programs were compatible. Most (82%) programs' appointment systems were not very compatible with the AA principles, mostly because the proportion of the schedule reserved for urgent appointments was insufficient. Interprofessional collaboration opportunities in the first year of residency allowed 60% of the programs to be compatible with this pillar.
conclusionsOur study highlights the heterogeneity among local residency programs with respect to their theoretical compatibility with the key principles of AA. Future research to empirically test the hypotheses raised by this study is warranted.
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.