ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2026
Choosing a Primary Care Provider: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Preferences.
Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 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.
- Switching for the better? understanding how contextual conditions influence patients' choice of primary care provider.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: (1) Identify what characteristics patients evaluate when choosing their primary care provider (PCP), (2) characterize how provider characteristics factor into patients' choice of PCP, and (3) develop a list of features for a quantitative preference study in the form of a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods: We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study to accomplish the objectives. We recruited participants from an internal medicine clinic and the general public in North Carolina. We used convenience and purposive sampling to recruit participants as a single sample. All participants completed a semi-structured interview. We then used a reflexive thematic analysis to analyze the data. We conducted a focus group to confirm and refine the interview findings. Finally, we created and prioritized a list of attributes and attribute levels for use in a future DCE study. Results: We conducted 12 interviews to reach data saturation. Participants mostly identified as female (75%, n=9), white (67%, n=8), and non-Hispanic/Latino (83%, n=10), with a mean age of 39 years (SD=15). Participants reported examining factors across several domains when deciding on their PCP: (1) knowledge/experience/age, (2) gender alignment, (3) convenience, and (4) cost. Based on the results of the interviews, we selected five preference-sensitive attributes and confirmed these with the focus group. Attributes that will be included in a future study include provider profession, provider race and gender, an attribute describing what the provider is known for, appointment availability, and driving time. Conclusions: We found that participants reported evaluating several important factors when deciding on selecting a PCP. Elucidating patients' willingness to accept different types of PCPs has policy implications for provider integration, cost-savings, and workload optimization.
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.