ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Where U.S. Women Receive Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite national primary care access challenges, some women receive primary care from both general medicine and obstetrics-gynecology (ob/gyn). The extent and potential implications of this phenomenon are unclear.
objectiveTo evaluate primary care use among US women and identify characteristics and service receipt associated with visits to both general medicine (e.g., general internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, geriatrics) and ob/gyn.
designRetrospective descriptive study using 2012, 2017 and 2022 data from the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.
participantsNon-pregnant women aged 19-85 years. MAIN MEASURES: Visit pattern (visits to general medicine only, ob/gyn only, both, another specialty only, no visits), usual source of care, service receipt. KEY
resultsOf 9,297 respondents (weighted = 125,485,789), 29.2% reported no usual source of care in 2022; 20.3% had no visits in 2022, an increase from 18.9% and 18.2% in 2012 and 2017, respectively (p-value = 0.03). Most 2022 respondents (53.8%) saw general medicine only, 3.4% saw ob/gyn only, 10.4% saw both, and 12.0% saw another specialty only. Among women who saw both specialties, 65.4% reported a general medicine clinician and 2.1% reported an ob/gyn clinician as their usual source of care. In multivariable models, compared to those with other visit patterns, women who saw both specialties had higher education levels (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 2.48 (95% CI 1.49, 4.13) for master's/doctorate degree vs. no degree) and were more likely to have insurance (private, public, Medicare) vs. no insurance (aRR 4.89 (2.47, 9.67), 4.21 (2.00, 8.88), 3.81 (1.61, 9.02), respectively). Seeing both specialties was associated with higher rates of potentially low-value lab testing and imaging, and both guideline-discordant and guideline-concordant Pap smears and mammograms.
conclusionsOne-fifth of nonpregnant adult women had no visits in 2022, while 10% received primary care from two sources, suggesting gaps and redundancies in primary care that could exacerbate access limitations and widen health inequities.
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.