ArticleBMJ open2025
Patient experience and primary care teams: a cross-sectional survey of French elderly patients.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether patient experience is better for patients followed in a primary care team (PCT) than for patients with traditional follow-up in usual care.
designA cross-sectional survey based on a self-administered questionnaire.
settingPays de la Loire geographical area (located on the French west coast). PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients over 75 or over 65 years of age with at least one chronic disease were included. A sample of 9900 frail elderly patients was invited to answer a 23-item questionnaire that investigated four dimensions: 'communication and patient-centred care', 'availability and accessibility', 'coordination' and 'caregiver'. Their answers were then analysed depending on whether they were followed in a mature PCT, in an emerging PCT or in usual care. The associations between follow-up in a PCT and patient experience were tested with generalised estimation equation models with a Poisson link function, adjusted for sex, age, educational level and the place of residence (French department).
resultsA total of 4078 responses were received. The result of the assessment for the 'communication and patient-centred care' dimension was improved for the participants in the PCT group for the following items: 'Health professionals were concerned about the impact my health had on my everyday life.' (RR=1.22, 95% CI (1.04; 1.43)), 'I have received help to better adapt my everyday life to my health.' (RR=1.25, 95% CI (1.05; 1.50)), 'I could take part in decisions concerning my health and care.' (RR=1.19, 95% CI (1.01; 1.42)) and 'My consent was requested prior to the transmission of the information between health professionals.' (RR=1.27, 95% CI (1.09; 1.48)). These assessments were not different between the PCT group and usual care group for other dimensions: 'availability and accessibility', 'coordination' and 'caregiver'.
conclusionThis study suggests an improved patient experience in regard to the communication perspective for patients in the PCT group. However, it remains unclear whether interprofessional collaboration (IPC) improves overall patient experience. Additional research could explore aspects of IPC that influence patient experience, providing insights to enhance strategies for improving PCTs.
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.