Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40523738›Full record

ReviewCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2025

Administrative burden in primary care: Critical review.

Oliver Storseth, Karen McNeil, Agnes Grudniewicz, Rebecca H Correia, François Gallant, Rachel Thelen, M Ruth Lavergne

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Solving the family medicine crisis: Research, evidence, community engagement.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2025
    Article
  12. Adaptation, prevention urged to address administrative burden.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Oliver StorsethMedical student at Dalhousie University in Halifax, NS.
Karen McNeilFamily physician and Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Dalhousie University.
Agnes GrudniewiczAssociate Professor in the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa in Ontario.
Rebecca H CorreiaPostdoctoral fellow in the Department of Family Medicine at Dalhousie University.
François GallantPostdoctoral fellow in the Department of Family Medicine at Dalhousie University and Vitalité Health Network in New Brunswick.
Rachel ThelenResearch associate in the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa.
M Ruth LavergneAssociate Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Dalhousie University and holds a Tier II Canada Research Chair in Primary Care.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAdministrative burden contributes to the current primary care crisis. This critical review of the literature explores how primary care administrative burden is discussed, including how it is defined and what drivers and solutions have been identified. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of MEDLINE and CINAHL electronic databases for peer-reviewed original research articles, literature reviews, and commentaries that discuss administrative burden in the context of primary care or primary health care. STUDY SELECTION: Searches identified 321 articles in MEDLINE and 109 in CINAHL, resulting in a total of 351 articles after duplicates were removed. Based on title and abstract screening, 228 articles were retained for full-text screening; 136 were ultimately included in the analysis. SYNTHESIS: Most articles focused on perspectives of physicians (72.8%), followed by those of other primary care clinicians (14.7%) and patients (12.5%). Few articles explicitly defined administrative burden (n=6), although most illustrated the concept with examples. One relevant definition of administrative burden distinguishes compliance, learning, and psychological costs. This definition was proposed in the context of people interacting with bureaucracies generally, but these categories are also relevant to primary care specifically. Primary care administrative burdens most often included compliance costs (forms and information management), but learning costs (finding information, navigating processes, and adapting to and implementing new technology) and psychological costs (stress and burnout) were also discussed in the literature. Identified drivers of administrative burden included health system requirements, technological tools available to do administrative work, and complexity of patients or patient populations. Technology and task shifting were discussed as both drivers of administrative burden and solutions to administrative workload.

conclusionExamples of administrative burden in primary care underscore that this work often supports central functions of continuity and coordination of care. Attention often focuses on compliance costs, but learning costs (eg, finding information and learning new technology) and psychological costs must not be overlooked. That technology and task shifting can function as both drivers of and solutions to administrative burden highlights why this issue is challenging to address. Solutions should consider costs broadly and evaluate implications from multiple perspectives, including those of patients and caregivers.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareHumans

Identifiers

PMID40523738
PMCPMC12264525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.