ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM2025
Patient Perspectives on Delayed Specialty Follow-Up After a Primary Care Visit.
Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Research on the Social Context of Medicine and the Modern Family Physician.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients are often referred for important diagnostic tests or consultations after a concerning symptom or finding is identified at a primary care visit, but many referrals are delayed or not completed.
methodsIn this qualitative study, we reviewed electronic health record data to identify patients who did not have timely completion of a recommended referral at an academic primary care hospital-based practice and an affiliated community health center. Using semistructured interview guides, we interviewed 15 patients who did not complete a cardiac stress test within 28 days of a primary care visit associated with a diagnosis of chest pain, and 15 patients who did not complete a dermatology referral within 90 days of identification of a concerning skin lesion.
resultsThematic analysis highlighted 3 areas: 1) Patients desired clear communication to inform, equip and empower them, 2) Clinician-patient communication regarding a referral's rationale and value is key, and 3) Referral appointment processes were often challenging and/or delayed. Patients wished to understand why they were being referred, the specific value and reason for the referral, and what to expect. We developed a conceptual model describing how the initial clinician-patient communication may influence referral completion.
conclusionsFailure to close diagnostic loops may be more likely when a patient is not given sufficient meaningful information, particularly if there is health system "friction" that reduces the patient's ability and ease to obtain a timely diagnostic referral appointment. Clinicians should use accessible language to communicate why a diagnostic referral is useful and important for the patient's health, and include a specific optimal time frame. The initial communication and the ease of the subsequent appointment booking both matter, and may compound or mitigate each other's effect. To reduce diagnostic referral failures and delays. clinicians should advocate for consistent appointment booking processes that systematically inform, equip, and empower patients with clear and meaningful referral information and timely appointments.
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.