ArticleBMC health services research2026
Urgent care utilization patterns in Switzerland: a population-based cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Switzerland, people with urgent but non–life-threatening symptoms can access care through several settings, including general practitioners (GPs), emergency departments (EDs), walk-in clinics, specialist practices, telemedicine, and pharmacies. Understanding what drives these choices is essential to improve care coordination and avoid unnecessary emergency use. This study examined demographic, socioeconomic, and access-related factors associated with urgent care pathways, with particular attention to the role of GPs.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, population-based online survey of adults living in Switzerland. Respondents reported the care setting used for their most recent urgent health problem. The primary outcome was the chosen setting: GP, walk-in clinic, ED, or specialist practice. Predictors included sociodemographic characteristics, insurance deductible, perceived access barriers, and having a regular GP. Multinomial logistic regression estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity analyses included LASSO variable selection and bivariate analyses.
resultsAmong 1,239 respondents, most sought urgent care (54%, n = 667) in the previous 12 months. From these, 50.7% (95% CI: 46.9–54.5%, n = 338) sought care from a GP followed by EDs, specialists, and walk-in clinics. Lack of a regular GP was strongly associated with seeking care outside primary care, particularly at walk-in clinics (OR 17.7, 95% CI 5.5–56.8) and specialist practices (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.3–14.3). Higher household income was associated with greater ED use. Reported geographical barriers to emergency care were associated with increased use of walk-in clinics (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.25–6.33). Most participants consulted their GP before seeking urgent care, often in combination with other contacts, highlighting the GP’s advisory role.
conclusionsHaving a regular GP is a key factor in how people in Switzerland choose urgent care. Those without one are far more likely to turn to walk-in clinics, specialists, or the ED. Income and access barriers also shape these choices. Strengthening stable GP relationships may help guide patients more effectively and reduce avoidable emergency use.
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.