ReviewPrimary health care research & development2024
The need for a broad perspective when assessing value-for-money for out-of-hours primary care.
Review in Primary health care research & development, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic evaluation of diverting low-risk patients from the emergency department to adjacent out-of-hours primary care in Belgium.Primary health care research & development · 2026Trial
- A Cost-Minimization Analysis of Teleconsultation Versus In-Person Care for Chronic Diseases and Rehabilitation in Medically Underserved Areas of South Korea.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOut-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC) has emerged as a promising solution to improve efficiency, accessibility, and quality of care and to reduce the strain on emergency departments. As this modality gains traction in diverse healthcare settings, it is increasingly important to fully assess its societal value-for-money and conduct thorough process evaluations. However, current economic evaluations mostly emphasise direct- and short-term effect measures, thus lacking a broader societal perspective.
aimThis study offers a comprehensive overview of current effect measures in OOH-PC evaluations and proposes additional measures from the evaluation of integrated care programmes. APPROACH AND DEVELOPMENT: First, we systematically identified the effect measures from published cost-effectiveness studies and classified them as process, outcome, and resource use measures. Second, we elaborate on the incorporation of 'productivity gains', 'health promotion and early intervention', and 'continuity of care' as additional effects into economic evaluations of OOH-PC. Seeking care affects personal and employee time, potentially resulting in decreased productivity. Challenges in taking time off work and limited access to convenient care are often cited as barriers to accessing primary care. As such, OOH-PC can potentially reduce opportunity costs for patients. Furthermore, improving access to healthcare is important in determining whether people receive promotional and preventive services. Health promotion involves empowering people to take control of their health and its determinants. Given the unscheduled nature and the fragmented or rotational care in OOH-PC, the degree to which interventions and modalities provide continuity should be monitored, assessed, and included in economic evaluations. Continuity of care in primary care improves patient satisfaction, promotes adherence to medical advice, reduces reliance on hospitals, and reduces mortality.
conclusionAlthough it is essential to also address local settings and needs, the integration of broader scope measures into OOH-PC economic evaluations improves the comprehensive evaluation that aligns with welfare gains.
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.