ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Exploring factors influencing patient choice in outpatient ophthalmology provider in the North London region: a patient survey.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore factors important to patients when choosing a secondary care provider.
methodsA survey was distributed to 376 participants at Moorfields Eye Hospital comprising both free-text responses and Likert scale elements. Word frequency analysis was applied to free-text responses, and K-means analysis to identify clusters from Likert responses.
resultsReputation, expertise, quality of care and clinical outcomes were the most important factors driving patient preference-more so than practicalities such as travel, ease of access, parking and proximity to healthcare provider. One of two identified clusters of patients appeared to place higher value on societal benefits (eg, sustainability, carbon footprint minimisation, cost-efficiency for National Health Service (NHS)) than the other. DISCUSSION: The current NHS approach of highlighting travel distance, wait times and Care Quality Commission (CQC) ratings when presenting choice is inadequate to support informed choice of provider. Further work in a more representative cohort and exploration of real-world patient decisions is warranted.
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.