Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38976870›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Investigating Patient Use and Experience of Online Appointment Booking in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study.

Helen Atherton, Abi Eccles, Leon Poltawski, Jeremy Dale, John Campbell, Gary Abel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 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. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Why coding the modality of primary care consultations matters.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

Helen AthertonPrimary Care Research Centre, School of Primary Care, Population Science, and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7072-1925
Abi EcclesUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9792-8299
Leon PoltawskiUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5890-3937
Jeremy DaleUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9256-3553
John CampbellUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6752-3493
Gary AbelUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2231-5161

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline appointment booking is a commonly used tool in several industries. There is limited evidence about the benefits and challenges of using online appointment booking in health care settings. Potential benefits include convenience and the ability to track appointments, although some groups of patients may find it harder to engage with online appointment booking. We sought to understand how patients in England used and experienced online appointment booking.

objectiveThis study aims to describe and compare the characteristics of patients in relation to their use of online appointment booking in general practice and investigate patients' views regarding online appointment booking arrangements.

methodsThis was a mixed methods study set in English general practice comprising a retrospective analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) and semistructured interviews with patients. Data used in the retrospective analysis comprised responses to the 2018 and 2019 GPPS analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Semistructured interviews with purposively sampled patients from 11 general practices in England explored experiences of and views on online appointment booking. Framework analysis was used to allow for comparison with the findings of the retrospective analysis.

resultsThe retrospective analysis included 1,327,693 GPPS responders (2018-2019 combined). We conducted 43 interviews with patients with a variety of experiences and awareness of online appointment booking; of these 43 patients, 6 (14%) were from ethnic minority groups. In the retrospective analysis, more patients were aware that online appointment booking was available (581,224/1,288,341, 45.11%) than had experience using it (203,184/1,301,694, 15.61%). There were deprivation gradients for awareness and use and a substantial decline in both awareness and use in patients aged >75 years. For interview participants, age and life stage were factors influencing experiences and perceptions, working patients valued convenience, and older patients preferred to use the telephone. Patients with long-term conditions were more aware of (odds ratio [OR] 1.43, 95% CI 1.41-1.44) and more likely to use (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.63-1.67) online appointment booking. Interview participants with long-term conditions described online appointment booking as useful for routine nonurgent appointments. Patients in deprived areas were clustered in practices with low awareness and use of online appointment booking among GPPS respondents (OR for use 0.65, 95% CI 0.64-0.67). Other key findings included the influence of the availability of appointments online and differences in the registration process for accessing online booking.

conclusionsWhether and how patients engage with online appointment booking is influenced by the practice with which they are registered, whether they live with long-term conditions, and their deprivation status. These factors should be considered in designing and implementing online appointment booking and have implications for patient engagement with the wider range of online services offered in general practice.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesPrimary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedEnglandFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultappointmentgeneral practicemobile phoneonline systemspatient appointmentsprimary health carequalitative researchsecondary data analysis

Identifiers

PMID38976870
PMCPMC11263895

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.