Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39633337›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Barriers accessing specialty care in the United States: a patient perspective.

Robert Schuldt, Kimberly Jinnett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Mobile Eye Units in the United States and Canada: A Narrative Review of Structures, Services and Challenges.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  17. Complexity and Barriers to Vision Care: A Narrative Review Informed by a Mobile Eye Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Robert SchuldtGenentech Inc., 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, CA, 94080, USA. schuldtr@gene.com.
Kimberly JinnettUniversity of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpecialty care is a critical component of the healthcare system in the United States (US). Despite the frequency and importance of specialty referrals, disparities accessing specialty care have been reported across geographic regions and sociodemographic groups in the US.

methodsThe purpose of this study is to help inform health policy and practical solutions for improving access to specialty care in the US. We examined patients' perspectives and experiences regarding access to specialty care for themselves and family members across 5 specialty areas (oncology, neurology, ophthalmology, endocrinology, and other specialty). Data for access to care were collected from the RAND American Life Panel, a nationally representative probability-based panel of 6,000 participants who are regularly interviewed over the internet.

resultsThe survey population consisted of 2,137 adults, with a specialist referral recommended for 1,391 respondents (65%). The mean age of the population was 59.4 years, 23.0% were rural dwellers, 57.6% were female, 80.8% were White, 59.4% were married or living with a partner, and 85.4% were in good health. Approximately one-third (28%) of the US population experienced a barrier accessing a care specialist (oncologist, neurologist, ophthalmologist, endocrinologist, or other specialist) for themselves or for their families in 2021. Differences in access to specialty care were observed between US census regions. Difficulty accessing specialty care differed according to sociodemographic groups; a greater percentage of respondents who were < 65 years, women, or BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) experienced a problem accessing a specialist. Numerous barriers were identified that limited access to specialty care in the overall US population, with difficulty getting an appointment and long wait times being identified as primary barriers.

conclusionsPatient access to specialty care may be further complicated by patient-specific compounding factors including the number of specialty referrals, insurance providers, and barriers.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityAdultAgedFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMaleMedicineMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationSpecializationUnited StatesAccessBarriersDisparitiesPatternsSociodemographicSpecialty careUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39633337
PMCPMC11619391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.