Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40394593›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

The association of appointment type in healthcare with patient reported experience measures: a population-based survey study.

Tarja Heponiemi, Emma Kainiemi, Lotta Virtanen, Tuulikki Vehko, Anna-Mari Aalto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Factors influencing confidence and trust in health professionals: a cross-sectional study of English general practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Tarja HeponiemiFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, 00271, Finland. tarja.heponiemi@thl.fi.
Emma KainiemiFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, 00271, Finland.
Lotta VirtanenFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, 00271, Finland.
Tuulikki VehkoFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, 00271, Finland.
Anna-Mari AaltoFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, 00271, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoor access to healthcare and long waiting times are severe challenges in many countries and therefore countries have increasingly adopted teleconsultations such as video, messaging, and phone calls. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess the quality of care based on patients' insights covering topics like the quality of communication, patient participation, and adequacy of time allocation of the appointment. The present study examined whether the type of appointment (in-person, by phone call or via digital services), service sector, and encountered health professional were associated with patients' experience of appointment quality in healthcare.

methodsThe data from the population-based cross-sectional Healthy Finland Survey conducted from September 2022 to February 2023 including 22 665 respondents (53% women) were used. Complex samples logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations of the independent variables (type of appointment, the service sector and encountered healthcare professional) with PREMs (sufficient time allocation, opportunity to ask questions, active participation, and responsiveness to needs) adjusted for self-rated health, age, sex, and urbanization status.

resultsThose whose appointment was conducted by phone call had greater odds of not agreeing that enough time was allocated (OR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1.36-1.81), opportunity to ask was offered (OR = 1.28, 95%CI = 1.10-1.50), active participation possibilities were given (OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.15-1.54-), and their needs were met (OR = 1.39, 95%CI = 1.20-1.60) compared to in-person appointments. Those whose appointment was conducted by digital services had greater odds of not agreeing that enough time was allocated (OR = 1.51, 95%CI = 1.21-1.88) and opportunity to ask was offered (OR = 1.38, 95%CI = 1.07-1.78) compared to in-person appointments. Moreover, respondents had greater odds of disagreeing with PREM statements in health centers and when encountering physicians compared to their counterparts.

conclusionsIt seems that teleconsultations do not allocate enough time, offer opportunity to ask, give possibility to active participation, and meet patients' needs similarly as in-person appointments. Especially appointments conducted by phone call differed negatively from in-person visits regarding all these aspects. Our findings should be kept in mind when planning and developing teleconsultations. Teleconsultations may be a good option in many cases, but not for all patients or for all situations. Moreover, physicians and health centers should adopt means to improve time allocation, patient participation, and responsiveness to patients' needs.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionQuality of Health CareAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFinlandHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesHealth carePatient participationPatient-reported measures (PREMs)Responsiveness to needsTeleconsultationsTime allocation

Identifiers

PMID40394593
PMCPMC12090503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.