ArticleBMC primary care2026
Complexity of medical needs and primary care attachment shape patient experiences with episodic virtual primary care: a mixed methods study in two Canadian provinces.
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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEpisodic virtual care (EVC) offers patients rapid access to virtual primary care services but lacks relational continuity with a primary care clinician or team. We investigated patients' experiences with EVC and examined differences based on access to a regular primary care clinician and self-reported complexity of medical needs.
methodsIn this convergent parallel mixed methods study, we conducted a descriptive and exploratory survey of EVC users' health service access, self-reported medical needs, EVC use, and demographics. Participants included adults (aged ≥ 18) living in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick who self-reported using EVC in the past year. We used descriptive statistics to summarize numeric and ordinal data of patient experience and stratified findings by having a regular primary care clinician and medical complexity. We conducted inductive content analysis of free-text survey responses. We integrated quantitative and qualitative data at the interpretation phase.
resultsWe identified mixed experiences among EVC users, with quantitative data portraying virtual care experiences more favourably than free-text responses. Most users felt EVC met their health needs, although those without a regular primary care clinician and with greater medical complexity tended to rate experiences less favourably. In free-text responses, some participants expressed concerns with the technological aspects of virtual visits and voiced preferences for in-person care. Patients with a regular primary care clinician tended to access EVC for short-term health concerns, whereas those without a regular primary care clinician sought care for ongoing/chronic problems and prescription renewals.
conclusionsEVC is helping to address some gaps in access, particularly for patients without a regular primary care clinician, by providing care where there might otherwise be none. However, EVC often falls short of meeting ongoing and more comprehensive care needs, underscoring the importance of improving access to longitudinal primary care.
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.