ArticlePloS one2026
Waiting time for scheduled outpatient specialist consultations by access pathway in public hospitals in Ecuador.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify waiting time in days for scheduled outpatient specialist consultations and to compare waiting time between standardized and non-standardized access pathways in Ecuadorian public hospitals.
methodsWe analyzed hospital-based survey data from Ecuadorian public hospitals, restricted to adults attending a scheduled outpatient specialist consultation (n = 4,436). Emergency care, unscheduled urgent visits, procedures, and follow-up visits were excluded by design. Access pathway was classified from participants' self-report as standardized (institutional or system-based) or non-standardized (informal or non-system-based). Waiting time, defined as the number of days between obtaining the appointment and attending the consultation, was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Sociodemographic correlates of non-standardized access were examined using adjusted logistic regression, and adjusted median differences were estimated using quantile regression (τ = 0.50). Effect modification by specialty referral requirement was assessed in a single median regression model using an interaction between access pathway and referral-requirement stratum.
resultsNon-standardized access was associated with shorter waiting times than standardized access. In median regression adjusted for sociodemographic covariates, specialty, and hospital, with hospital-clustered inference, non-standardized access was associated with a 3.6-day shorter conditional median waiting time (95% CI -6.2 to -1.0). Adjusted stratum-specific contrasts were -7.9 days (95% CI -13.7 to -2.1) in direct-access specialties and -3.1 days (95% CI -5.9 to -0.2) in referral-required specialties; however, the interaction between access pathway and referral-requirement stratum was not statistically significant (p = 0.136).
conclusionAmong patients who attended a scheduled outpatient specialist consultation in Ecuadorian public hospitals, non-standardized access was associated with shorter waiting times. Although the adjusted point estimate was larger in direct-access specialties, the formal interaction test did not provide clear evidence that the association differed according to specialty referral requirement. These findings suggest that, within routine outpatient care, parallel access pathways may shape timeliness and warrant greater transparency in appointment allocation and referral coordination.
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.