ArticleBMC primary care2025
Clinical coordination between primary-level physicians and referral-level specialists in Morocco: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs part of the ongoing overhaul of the Moroccan health-care system, clinical coordination between primary level physicians (PLP) and referral level specialists (RLS) remains crucial but under documented, especially in North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean Region. This study aimed to assess clinical coordination levels in the Casablanca-Settat region and identify influencing factors.
methodsAn analytical cross-sectional survey was conducted from April to May 2024 among a random sample of 329 public-sector physicians (186 PLP; 143 RLS) from a pool of 1637 eligible practitioners. The COORDENA-CAT questionnaire, adapted from the original COORDENA instrument developed in Latin America and refined in Catalonia, was translated into French, culturally adapted, and psychometrically validated in four steps: forward-back translation, expert review, cognitive interviews, and a pilot study confirming construct validity and reliability. Fourteen items evaluated experiences of information-sharing and clinical-management coordination, whereas one summary item captured overall perception. Sociodemographic, organizational, and interactional data were collected. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with a high perception of coordination (α = 0.05).
resultsOnly 30.7% respondents (18.8% of PLP vs. 46.2% of RLS) reported regularly sharing clinical information. Therapeutic coherence was limited, with just 24.3% stating that care plans were jointly defined. While 97.3% of the PLP considered referrals appropriate, only 59.4% of the RLS agreed. Overall, 27.7% of the physicians (17.2% PLP and 41.3% RLS) judged coordination "often or always" satisfactory. Independent determinants of a high perception of coordination included working at the referral level (adjusted OR (aOR) = 3.34; 95% CI: 1.60-6.97), having personal ties with the other level (aOR = 3.05; 1.54-6.04), perceiving mutual influence on practice (aOR = 2.39; 1.24-4.58), and working in an institution that facilitates coordination (aOR = 2.66; 1.37-5.17).
conclusionClinical coordination in the study region is limited, especially among PLP, due to inadequate feedback, weak formal mechanisms, and restricted specialist access. Strengthening local governance, providing secure digital tools (such as shared electronic health record and tele-expertise), organizing regular clinical meetings, and granting PLP formal recognition as care coordinators are priority strategies to enhance the continuity and efficiency of care pathways.
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.