Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38858690›Full record

ReviewBMC medicine2024

Understanding the causes of missingness in primary care: a realist review.

Calum Lindsay, David Baruffati, Mhairi Mackenzie, David A Ellis, Michelle Major, Catherine A O'Donnell, Sharon A Simpson, Andrea E Williamson, Geoff Wong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Keeping PeopleInternational journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Research Paper of the Year 2024: impact on the patient, the practitioner, the practice, and policy.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  15. Can we tackle the inverse care law in general practice?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. "Women's health (London, England)
    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.

Calum LindsayGeneral Practice and Primary Care, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Clarice Pears Building, 90 Byres Road, Glasgow, G12 8TB, UK. calum.lindsay@glasgow.ac.uk.
David BaruffatiGeneral Practice and Primary Care, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Clarice Pears Building, 90 Byres Road, Glasgow, G12 8TB, UK.
Mhairi MackenzieSchool of Social & Political Sciences, Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, 27 Bute Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RS, UK.
David A EllisCentre for Healthcare Innovation and Improvement Information, Decisions and Operations, Centre for Business Organisations and Society (CBOS), University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Michelle MajorHomeless Network Scotland, 12 Commercial Rd, Adelphi Centre, Gorbals, Glasgow, G5 0PQ, UK.
Catherine A O'DonnellGeneral Practice and Primary Care, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Clarice Pears Building, 90 Byres Road, Glasgow, G12 8TB, UK.
Sharon A SimpsonMRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Andrea E WilliamsonGeneral Practice and Primary Care, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Clarice Pears Building, 90 Byres Road, Glasgow, G12 8TB, UK.
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough missed appointments in healthcare have been an area of concern for policy, practice and research, the primary focus has been on reducing single 'situational' missed appointments to the benefit of services. Little attention has been paid to the causes and consequences of more 'enduring' multiple missed appointments in primary care and the role this has in producing health inequalities.

methodsWe conducted a realist review of the literature on multiple missed appointments to identify the causes of 'missingness.' We searched multiple databases, carried out iterative citation-tracking on key papers on the topic of missed appointments and identified papers through searches of grey literature. We synthesised evidence from 197 papers, drawing on the theoretical frameworks of candidacy and fundamental causation.

resultsMissingness is caused by an overlapping set of complex factors, including patients not identifying a need for an appointment or feeling it is 'for them'; appointments as sites of poor communication, power imbalance and relational threat; patients being exposed to competing demands, priorities and urgencies; issues of travel and mobility; and an absence of choice or flexibility in when, where and with whom appointments take place.

conclusionsInterventions to address missingness at policy and practice levels should be theoretically informed, tailored to patients experiencing missingness and their identified needs and barriers; be cognisant of causal domains at multiple levels and address as many as practical; and be designed to increase safety for those seeking care.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAppointments and SchedulesHumansPatient ComplianceCandidacyHealth service accessHealth service equityMultiple missed appointmentsPrimary careRealist synthesis

Identifiers

PMID38858690
PMCPMC11165900

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.