ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
First-contact access from the perspective of users of primary health care: an evaluation in family and oral health teams.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the primary health care attribute of first-contact access from the perspective of users of family and oral health teams in São Paulo, Brazil.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at 12 basic health units between January and November 2021. The adult versions of the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCATool-Brazil) and PCATool-Oral Health were used to assess first-contact access through its two components of utilization and accessibility.
resultsIn total, 537 individuals participated, including 129 users of oral health teams and 408 users of family health teams. In both groups, utilization scores were higher than accessibility scores. Among users of oral health teams, the mean scores were 8.08 for utilization and 4.37 for accessibility; among users of family health teams, the corresponding scores were 8.43 and 3.80. For oral and family health teams, high performance for utilization was observed in 85.37% and 87.53% of users, whereas low performance for accessibility was observed in 95.08% and 97.70% of users, respectively. Few differences in participant characteristics were observed among users of oral health teams, with higher utilization scores noted among those without private health insurance. Regarding users of family health teams, higher utilization scores were observed among older adults, retirees, or pensioners; beneficiaries of social programs; those without private health insurance; and those with hypertension and or diabetes. For accessibility, higher scores were observed among men, older adults, and retirees or pensioners.
conclusionOverall, utilization was satisfactory and accessibility was unsatisfactory in both family and oral health teams. Primary health care services were recognized as a usual source of care, but organizational barriers to timely access remain, especially in oral health care. These findings highlight the need to strengthen accessibility in primary health care, particularly through organizational strategies aimed at improving timely access to 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.