ArticleBMC health services research2025
Exploring user experiences in a novel primary care center: a qualitative grounded theory 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care serves as the initial point of healthcare contact; however, the shortage of general practitioners can threaten equitable access to primary care, necessitating innovative models. In a district in the north of Italy, an alternative primary care model, as a primary care center (PCC), has been established to care for citizens unattached to a general practitioner. We aimed to explore the users' experience with the novel alternative primary care model.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using a grounded theory approach. We interviewed a total of 33 participants, including 25 patients and eight informal caregivers.
resultsFindings suggest a core concept of the "Patient experience process at the PCC as a dynamic and interconnected journey" that unfolds in three interconnected themes, starting from "Living the care pathway at the PCC ", progressing to "Evaluating the care pathway at the PCC", and concluding with "Drawing conclusion on the PCC". Patients transitioned through these phases as they interact with healthcare professionals, reflect on the quality of care, and make informed decisions regarding their preferences. Findings indicate that the transition from a general practitioner to the PCC is often marked by uncertainty and frustration, primarily due to the lack of structured handovers and clear service explanations. However, effective communication, proactive follow-up, and home visits by healthcare professionals significantly enhance patient satisfaction and trust in the PCC model. Nurses emerge as central figures in ensuring continuity of care and holistic support, while multidisciplinary collaboration fosters comprehensive and personalized care. Patients critically assess their care experiences, weighing the benefits of PCC services against their previous GP experiences. While many patients appreciate the structured and multidisciplinary nature of PCC care, some still prefer a dedicated GP for continuity and familiarity. Digital health solutions, including telehealth and remote monitoring, are recognized as useful additions but require careful integration to avoid reducing human interaction and address potential barriers for older people needing support from informal caregivers.
conclusionOur study underscores the importance of effective communication, proactive follow-up, multidisciplinary care, and continuity of care to ensure a positive user experience satisfaction when delivering primary care to patients unattached to a GP through a new alternative primary care model.
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.