ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Availability of Women's Health Clinics, Primary Care Providers, and Women Veterans' Ratings of Care Experiences.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveVA strives to improve women Veterans' access to comprehensive care. We assessed if availability of specialized clinic arrangements for women or specialized providers (women's health primary care providers) was associated with women Veterans' ratings of primary care experiences.
designCross sectional.
participantsWe linked patient-level survey data (Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients, FY 2017, n=4264) with primary care clinic-level data (Clinical Practice Organizational Survey, primary care module, 2017-2018, n=126) from clinics with ≥300 women Veterans. MAIN MEASURES: Our dependent variables were derived from top ratings for items rating access, care coordination, comprehensiveness (behavioral health assessed), provider communication, and primary care provider. Our variables of interest were the availability of specialized clinic arrangements such as women's health clinics and specialized providers such as women's health primary care providers. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: We conducted multi-level, multivariate logistic regression predicting women Veterans' optimal ratings of care, controlling for patient-, clinic-, and area-level characteristics. KEY
resultsWomen Veterans receiving care at general primary care clinics with no women's health primary care providers had a lower likelihood of rating provider communication as optimal (Adjusted Odds Ratio .60, 95%CI .45-.78) or rating the primary care provider as 9 or 10/10 (Adjusted Odds Ratio .61, 95%CI .42-.86). Women Veterans receiving care at VA sites with a gynecology clinic had a higher likelihood of rating access as optimal (Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.40, 95%CI 1.01-1.94).
conclusionsOur study found that availability of women's health primary care providers in general primary care and availability of gynecology clinics were associated with higher likelihood of women Veterans rating care experiences as optimal. Almost all VA sites have women's health primary care providers available, increasing availability at every site remains an important goal. Relatively few VA community-based outpatient clinics offer gynecology clinics, offering opportunities for improved care experiences among women Veterans.
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.