ArticleBMC primary care2026
Determinants of exclusive utilisation of scheduled and unscheduled primary care visits: a cross-sectional study in Portugal.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundPrimary healthcare (PHC) is essential for delivering accessible, continuous, and comprehensive care. While scheduled and unscheduled visits are both integral to PHC, the exclusive use of one type has not been previously explored. Understanding the determinants of exclusive utilisation may inform service organisation and improve efficiency.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included adults (≥ 18 years) who consulted a family physician in the Local Health Unit of Entre-Douro-e-Vouga, Portugal, during 2023. Patients who used both scheduled and unscheduled visits were excluded from the analysis. Data were extracted from anonymised electronic health records. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were analysed using multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with exclusive appointment type.
resultsAmong 28,213 patients, corresponding to 10.1% of the total, 68.0% used only scheduled visits and 32.0% only unscheduled visits. Scheduled visits were more frequent among women, local residents, employed individuals, and patients with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, cancer, or depression. Unscheduled visits were associated with men, students, and patients with asthma, dementia, anxiety, or cerebrovascular disease. Registration at a Family Health Unit (USF) was independently associated with higher odds of unscheduled visits (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.50–0.59). Chronic conditions requiring structured follow-up were strong predictors of scheduled visits, while episodic or fluctuating conditions were linked to unscheduled utilisation.
conclusionsExclusive utilisation patterns in PHC are shaped by sociodemographic and clinical factors. Scheduled visits reflect engagement with preventive care and chronic disease management, whereas unscheduled visits respond to acute or unpredictable needs. These findings highlight the need to tailor care pathways to patient profiles and ensure that organisational models—such as USFs—balance accessibility with continuity. Strengthening structured follow-up and improving responsiveness for episodic conditions may enhance equity and efficiency in primary care delivery.
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.