ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Reflective Tool on Advanced Access to Support Primary Healthcare Teams: Development and Validation of an Online Questionnaire.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleAwareness of their standing relative to best practices motivates primary healthcare (PHC) teams to improve their practices. However, gathering the data necessary to create such a portrait is a challenge. An effective way to support the improvement of the practices of PHC teams is to simplify the availability of data portraying aspects of their practices that might need improvement. Timely access is one of the foremost challenges of PHC. Yet, very few tools supporting reflections on the implementation of best practices to improve access are available to PHC teams. AIMS AND
objectivesTo develop an online reflective tool that evaluates the state of a PHC team member's advanced access practice and formulates customized recommendations for improvement.
methodsThis sequential multimethod study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel composed of researchers, patients, provincial and local decision-makers, and PHC clinical and administrative staff in the province of Quebec, Canada. Consensus was reached on the content of the questionnaire and the prioritization of the recommendations.
resultsNo reflective tool on advanced access practices was found in the literature review. Grey literature was used to create an initial version of the questionnaire. This version was revised and enriched through consultation phases with the expert panel. Then, five iterations of the tool were tested with 169 PHC team members, which led to the conception of two distinct versions: one for clinical staff and one for administrative agents responsible for appointment booking. The final versions of the reflective tool are available online in both English and French.
conclusionThis reflective tool provides a portrait of PHC team members' advanced access practices as well as an automated report that contains personalized and prioritized recommendations for improvement. Further developments are necessary for its optimal use among PHC professionals other than physicians and nurse practitioners.
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.