Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39976555›Full record

ReviewJournal of primary care & community health

Determining Patient Panel Size in Primary Care: A Meta-Narrative Review.

Abd Moain Abu Dabrh, Wigdan H Farah, Heidi M McLeod, Parisa Biazar, Arya B Mohabbat, Bala Munipalli, Rachel Garofalo, Robert J Stroebel, Nilay Shah, Kurt B Angstman and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Physician and Practice Characteristics Associated with Family Physician Panel Size.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
    Article
  4. 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

18 authors.

Abd Moain Abu DabrhMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2481-483X
Wigdan H FarahMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Heidi M McLeodMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Parisa BiazarPrimary Care Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA.
Arya B MohabbatMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Bala MunipalliMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1188-5495
Rachel GarofaloUniversity of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Robert J StroebelMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Nilay ShahMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Kurt B AngstmanMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5736-2032
Richard J PresuttiMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6990-1323
Bryan FarfordMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Jennifer L HornMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Summer V AllenMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Adam I PerlmanMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4301-2381
Ana Lucia Chong LauMayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Larry J ProkopMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
M Hassan MuradMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimal patient panel size (PPS) in primary care and the factors determining it remain unclear. We conducted a meta-narrative review of the literature to evaluate factors influencing PPS and assess its association with patient outcomes. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed from inception through December 2023, focusing on original studies reporting factors used to determine PPS and related outcomes (eg, clinical outcomes, process measures, and resource utilization). A total of 48 studies were included, identifying 7 key factors influencing PPS. Smaller panels were associated with improved patient satisfaction, continuity of care, and health promotion, while clinical outcomes, utilization, and costs showed minimal impact by PPS. Panel size was primarily associated with patient age, sex, comorbidities, and practice type and structure. Community-based centers typically managed smaller panels, often staffed by female clinicians and serving socioeconomically disadvantaged populations with greater health needs than hospital-based practices. Female clinicians were also independently associated with managing smaller panels, higher quality care indicators, fewer emergency department visits, and improved patient satisfaction. Determining the ideal PPS is a multifaceted process influenced by practice setting, patient demographics, and clinician characteristics. While practice-related factors showed limited association with PPS, patient-reported outcomes were more closely linked to it. Primary care practices should tailor panel sizes to their patient populations, emphasizing a patient-centered approach and ensuring adequate infrastructure support to optimize care delivery.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareFemaleHumansPatient Satisfactionaccess to careambulatory carecommunity-based interventionspractice managementprimary care

Identifiers

PMID39976555
PMCPMC11843711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.