Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42142040›Full record

ArticleJournal of primary care & community health

Appointments aren't Access: The Hidden Work of Getting Care.

Waseem Jerjes, Azeem Majeed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Waseem JerjesDepartment of Primary Care & Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6914-7401
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care & Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary care access is often judged by appointment supply, waiting times, and utilisation, yet patients experience access as a series of small obstacles that accumulate into delay, drop-off, and avoidable deterioration. Building on existing literature on administrative burden, treatment burden, digital exclusion, and telemedicine inequity, this commentary proposes the Access Friction Index (AFI) as a practical framework for measuring the real-world effort required to convert a health need into timely assessment, follow-up, and treatment. Drawing on recent evidence from the UK, US and other settings, it links access friction to inequities for vulnerable groups, missed screening, medication non-adherence, unplanned return visits, and avoidable hospital use. It also outlines how routine service data and electronic records could be used to identify friction hotspots-including repeated contact, mode switching, handoffs, results handling failures, and delayed pathway closure-and how primary care-community approaches such as navigation and outreach might reduce friction while improving outcomes.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesHealth Services AccessibilityPrimary Health CareAccess to Primary CareHumansUnited Kingdomaccess to carecommunity healthhealth inequitiespatient-centerednessprimary care

Identifiers

PMID42142040
PMCPMC13180103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.