ArticleBMC health services research2025
Primary health care provider availability and accessibility: a comparison of responses from providers and their office staff, results from the Models and Access Atlas of Primary Care - Nova Scotia (MAAP-NS) population study.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care providers’ (i.e., physicians and nurse practitioners) perceptions of their availability and accessibility may differ from those of their staff (i.e., clerical or reception staff), who are the gatekeepers to accessing care. The objective of this study is to compare responses of primary care providers and their staff on questions reflecting provider availability and accessibility.
methodsWe conducted a population survey within Nova Scotia Canada that included 369 primary health care providers and their staff. Main outcomes measured included whether primary health care providers were accepting new patients, requiring meet-and-greets before accepting new patients, had a one-issue-per-visit policy, and had weekly office-hours.
resultsAmong providers, 87% reported accepting new patients whereas only 64% of their staff said that they do (p < 0.001). Rates of unconditionally accepting patients (11% of providers and 10% of staff) did not differ (p = 0.62). Acceptance of opioid-requiring patients was reported by 61% of providers and by 70% of their staff (p = 0.05). Requiring meet-and-greets was reported by 36% of providers and 52% of their staff (p < 0.001). There was no difference on a one-issue-per-visit policy (15% of providers and 16% of staff; p = 0.75). The median (IQR) number of hours per week spent working as an office-based primary care provider was 40 (30, 45) reported by the providers and 28.9 (21, 35) reported by staff (p < 0.001).
conclusionsDiscrepancies between providers and staff when describing the same practices suggests that components of availability and accessibility are not uniformly understood. Staff who deal with members of the public seeking a provider may inaccurately indicate a provider’s acceptance of new patients, identifying a need for improved specific communication between providers and their staff.
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.