ArticleBMC primary care2025
Patient preferences for key organizational features of primary cardiovascular care in Quebec: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular diseases and their risk factors are leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and are among the top reasons for primary care visits. Little is known about patient preferences for primary care in the context of chronic conditions. This study aimed to investigate the effect of key organizational features identified by patients and providers on patients' choice of a preferred primary care practice to receive cardiovascular care.
methodsA discrete choice experiment survey was completed by a weighted online sample of 501 Quebec residents having or being at risk of cardiovascular disease. Respondents completed one of two blocks of nine choice sets by indicating, among three hypothetical primary care practice alternatives in each choice set, their preferred and second-most preferred options. Alternatives were differentiated on the basis of five key attributes identified as priorities in an earlier Delphi study: listening to and respecting care preferences; providing personalized information; 24-to- 48-h accessibility in the event of a problem; continuity of care; and up-to-date clinical skills. Each attribute could be assigned a best, moderate, or worst level. Choices were analyzed using generalized multinomial logit modeling. Marginal effects and choice probabilities for policy-relevant scenarios were estimated.
resultsAll five attributes significantly influenced choices of primary care practice. The marginal effects of worst attribute levels were of much greater magnitude than those of best levels for all attributes. Improving short-term accessibility from worst to moderate level had the largest average incremental effect on the probability of patients choosing a practice. Best continuity of care was more valued by older patients and those in poorer general health, but had nonsignificant impact unless it was coupled with enhanced short-term accessibility.
conclusionsA balanced approach across the key organizational features covered seems more advantageous for primary care practices than focusing solely on achieving excellence in any single attribute. The interactions between patient preferences for short-term accessibility and continuity of care should be taken into account when planning and implementing organizational change in primary care. Whether these preferences are generalizable to other jurisdictions and subsets of primary care patients deserves further exploration.
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.